List governance proposals on the TRON network with pagination support. Returns a compact summary per proposal (use get_proposal for full details including approval addresses). Newest first by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max proposals to return (default: 5) | |
| order | No | Sort order by proposal ID: 'desc' (default, newest first) or 'asc' (oldest first) | |
| offset | No | Skip first N proposals (default: 0, for pagination) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Max proposals to return (default: 5)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Skip first N proposals (default: 0, for pagination)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / orderAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Sort order by proposal ID: 'desc' (default, newest first) or 'asc' (oldest first)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description describes a read-only list operation ('List', 'Returns a compact summary'). This directly contradicts the annotations, which is a serious inconsistency that could mislead the agent. Per the rubric, score is 1 and annotation_contradiction is flagged.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return type, with no redundant information. Every phrase earns its place, including the pointer to get_proposal.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple list tool with optional parameters, and it mentions what it returns. However, the contradictory annotations create a confusing safety profile (destructiveHint=true for a read operation), and the description does not explicitly clarify that the operation is read-only, leaving the agent with conflicting signals. Thus, despite the description's own clarity, the overall context is incomplete.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (limit, order, offset) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal extra value, like mentioning 'pagination support' and 'newest first by default', but these are already implied by the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool lists governance proposals on the TRON network with pagination, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_proposal by noting that this returns a compact summary while get_proposal provides full details including approval addresses.
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?
The description explicitly points to get_proposal as the alternative when full details are needed, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. the sibling. This helps the agent choose the right tool for the desired level of detail.
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.
Several tool groups have overlapping responsibilities (e.g., get_energy_prices/get_bandwidth_prices/get_chain_parameters, get_pending_transactions/get_pending_by_address/is_transaction_pending, and analyze_account vs get_account plus its resource/permission variants). These create boundary confusion despite clear descriptions, and with 43 tools an agent will likely select the wrong one occasionally.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_account, transfer_trx, delegate_resource, unfreeze_balance). Even the few multi-word verbs (estimate_energy, trigger_constant_contract) remain predictable. No camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 43 tools, the server is heavy. While the TRON domain is broad, the tool surface is bloated with many near-synonyms and split functionalities that could be consolidated. The rubric flags 25+ tools as too many; 43 clearly exceeds that.
The server covers a wide range of read and transaction-building operations, including staking, governance, contracts, and TRC20. However, it lacks critical lifecycle steps: there is no sign or broadcast tool, and no ability to deploy contracts or create accounts. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns unsigned transactions.