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

ulu-voi-mcp

by NautilusOSS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_protocol_contracts

Retrieve all known application contracts for a Voi protocol by supplying its protocol identifier.

Instructions

List all known application contracts for a Voi protocol

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": {
      "protocolId": "<protocolId>"
    },
    "name": "get_protocol_contracts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
protocolIdYesProtocol identifier (e.g. humble-swap, envoi, aramid-bridge)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states a read-only listing operation, but offers no additional behavioral context such as authentication, pagination, or what 'known' means. It is functional but minimal.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simple one-parameter interface and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but does not explain return structure or the nature of 'application contracts'. Slightly more context could improve completeness, but it is not severely deficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the protocolId parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('known application contracts') scoped to a Voi protocol. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_protocols (list protocols) and get_protocol_summary (summary of a single protocol).

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?

Usage is implied by the description: when you need to list contracts for a specific protocol. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools, nor any exclusions or alternative mentions.

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