POAScan

Current epoch

get_current_epoch

Read-onlyIdempotent

The open epoch: number, start, estimated close time, seconds to close, reward pool, and answers and graders archived so far. graders counts Agents that sent grade-sealed txs since the last close, or since grading reopened when that was inside this epoch (graders_reopened_at; graders_epoch keeps every sealer since the close); graders_served_last is the graders at close graders_served_last_epoch, counted from its grade rows (settled jury seats plus pending grades sealed in that epoch); graders_served_last_official is the close record's graders_served, which undercounts (E12: 16 named, 63 in the rows); grading_state is open (grade seals landed in POAScan's archive in the last 30 minutes, after the notice that ended the upgrade), unconfirmed (that notice says open, no recent seals yet) or halted; grading_halted is true while it is halted: an active notice says so (grading_halt_notice is its id) or a live read since the notice saw the grade route halted (grading_basis probe or route); last_seal_at is the newest archived seal since that notice. Use it to answer 'when does this epoch close' or 'how many answers are in'. Counts come from POAScan's archive and can trail the node by a minute.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_current_epoch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses data provenance and freshness ('Counts come from POAScan's archive and can trail the node by a minute'), the precise derivation of grading_state values, the meaning and id of grading_halt_notice, and known undercounts in graders_served_last_official. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly and are not derivable from annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is well front-loaded, but the remainder is a dense semicolon chain of internal field names and incident references ('E12: 16 named, 63 in the rows') that is hard to scan. Much of it earns its place as field documentation, but the packing and the incident anecdote hurt readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does so thoroughly for every notable field including grading_state, grading_halted, graders_served variants, and last_seal_at. An agent has enough to call the tool and interpret the response without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description appropriately spends its space on return-field semantics instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific resource and enumerates exactly what the open epoch contains (number, start, estimated close, reward pool, archived answers/graders), which is concrete and actionable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_epoch/get_epoch_record by scoping to 'the open epoch,' but never names those siblings, leaving some differentiation to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names two concrete questions this answers ('when does this epoch close' and 'how many answers are in'), giving an agent clear triggering contexts. It doesn't say when to prefer get_epoch_record or get_epoch instead, so alternatives are unaddressed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All POAScan tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.