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

ulu-voi-mcp

by NautilusOSS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

search_assets

Need a specific Voi token? Search assets by symbol, category, or protocol, and filter by verification to find it.

Instructions

Search known Voi assets by symbol, category, or protocol

Tool call template

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": "search_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolNoFilter by token symbol (e.g. VOI, USDC, SHELLY)
categoryNoFilter by category (e.g. native, bridged-token, community-token, stablecoin, liquid-staking)
protocolNoFilter by protocol ID (e.g. aramid-bridge, dorkfi)
verifiedNoFilter by verification status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'search' implies a read-only operation, the description does not state this explicitly nor describe the return format, pagination, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context.

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 sentence with an immediate verb and no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no return behavior described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how filters combine, what data is returned, or whether pagination exists. For a search tool with four optional filters, this is a significant gap.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including symbol, category, protocol, and verified. The description merely echoes three of these, adding no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Search' with a clear resource 'known Voi assets' and names three filter dimensions (symbol, category, protocol). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like identify_asset, which likely performs direct asset lookups.

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 usage (search assets by these filters) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like identify_asset or search_names. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls at implied usage rather than explicit guidelines.

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