Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ulu-voi-mcp

ulu-voi-mcp

by NautilusOSS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_contract_role

Get the role and purpose of a Voi contract by its application ID, returning types like liquidity-pool, bridge, or registry.

Instructions

Get the role and purpose of a specific contract on Voi (e.g. liquidity-pool, bridge, registry)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "appId": "<appId>"
    },
    "name": "get_contract_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYesApplication ID on Voi

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and provides a hint of the output ('role and purpose'), but it does not describe error handling, return structure, or any access limitations. This is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose and includes examples. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately conveys its purpose and scope. It could mention relation to sibling tools or potential error cases, but for a straightforward getter, the information is sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (appId) with a description ('Application ID on Voi'). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('role and purpose of a specific contract') and provides concrete examples (liquidity-pool, bridge, registry). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like identify_application, which focuses on identification rather than role labeling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need to know a contract's role), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude cases. It could reference identify_application for generic identification, but the intended use case is understandable from the examples.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools