Canonical stake.link registry for contracts, docs, repos, and upstream venue sources.
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": "sdl_get_registry"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Optional domain filter. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation through 'get' and 'registry', but does not state read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or response characteristics. It adds only the registry's scope, which is minimal context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and contains no redundant phrasing.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description identifies the registry's categories but does not explain the return format or how the optional domain filter changes results. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps about what an agent will actually receive.
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 single optional domain filter is fully documented in the schema, including its enum values. The description does not mention the filter at all, so baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does all the work.
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?
States a specific resource (stake.link registry) and enumerates its contents (contracts, docs, repos, upstream venue sources), which is clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as sdl_get_contract or sdl_get_contract_source, leaving ambiguity about which registry-like tool to choose.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions are provided. The description never explains when an agent should call this rather than the many other sdl_get_* tools in the sibling list.
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.