List super representatives (witnesses) on the TRON network with pagination support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max witnesses to return (default: 5) | |
| offset | No | Skip first N witnesses (default: 0, for pagination) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Max witnesses to return (default: 5)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Skip first N witnesses (default: 0, for pagination)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'List', implying a read-only operation, while annotations set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, a direct contradiction. No other behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions, return format) are provided, so transparency is critically lacking.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and structured.
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?
While the tool is simple, the contradiction between the read-only description and destructive annotation creates significant confusion. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify expected return values or default behavior, leaving the context 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 fully documents limit and offset with clear descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds the term 'pagination support' which maps to these parameters but provides no additional semantics beyond the schema.
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 super representatives (witnesses) on the TRON network and explicitly mentions pagination support. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from account, block, and transaction tools.
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 implies its use for enumerating witnesses with pagination, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with other list tools like list_proposals nor provide when-not-to-use guidance, so usage guidance is adequate but not explicit.
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.