Retrieve a published pricing campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The campaign slug (directory name). | |
| format | No | "json" for importable data, "markdown" for readable summary. | json |
| author_npub | Yes | The campaign author's npub. | |
| operator_npub | Yes | The target operator's npub. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / author_npub / descriptionAdded value: +"The campaign author's npub."Input schema / properties / format / descriptionAdded value: +"\"json\" for importable data, \"markdown\" for readable summary."Input schema / properties / operator_npub / descriptionAdded value: +"The target operator's npub."Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"The campaign slug (directory name)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve...' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't state what happens for missing or unpublished campaigns, whether any targeting is needed, or that the 'format' parameter changes the output shape. The 'published' qualifier adds a minor constraint but little else.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with a complete schema and an output schema, this is minimally viable. However, it lacks guidance about the 'format' parameter's effect, the selection criteria between get_campaign and list_campaigns, and what happens if the campaign isn't published or doesn't exist. The outpu schema covers return values, but the description is thin on operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters and their meanings. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('published pricing campaign'), clearly distinguishing it as a singular-item getter against siblings like list_campaigns and publish_campaign. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_campaigns, how to obtain the required npub/slug values, or any exclusions for unpublished campaigns. The word 'published' implies a constraint but the description never says 'use this over X' or 'not for unpublished.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource or lifecycle step: role-specific registrations, campaign tools, relay tools, and doc/status tools are clearly separated. Minor overlap exists between lookup_member/resolve_service and about/get_rulebook, but the descriptions are detailed enough to route an agent correctly.
Almost all tool names use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun structure (register_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, report_*). A few noun-phrase doc/status tools like about, economic_model, network_advisory, and service_status deviate, but the overall pattern remains readable and predictable.
At 30 tools, this surface is heavy and exceeds the 25-tool threshold, especially for what is mostly a registry/oracle service. Several tools are explicitly not yet implemented, and the count would benefit from deferring those stubs or consolidating related doc/resolution tools.
Core areas are covered: member lookup, role registration, operator updates, campaigns, relays, governance docs, and status/advisory queries. However, some workflows are stubs (ban elections, citizen renouncement) and lifecycle gaps remain for authority/advocate updates or deregistration, plus no ban-election status/result tool exists.