Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Graph AAVE MCP

Graph AAVE MCP

by PaulieB14
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_proposal_votes

Retrieve total 'for' and 'against' vote counts for any AAVE governance proposal by providing its proposal ID.

Instructions

Use this when the user asks about the vote totals on a specific AAVE governance proposal — 'How did proposal #X vote?', 'Show me the for/against breakdown for proposal #185', 'Did proposal #X pass?'. Returns aggregate vote totals: total forVotes and againstVotes for the proposal. Note: individual per-voter records are not indexed in this subgraph.

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": {
      "proposalId": "<proposalId>"
    },
    "name": "get_proposal_votes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposalIdYesAAVE governance proposal ID (numeric string, e.g. '185')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses return values (forVotes, againstVotes) and a limitation (no per-voter records). Could specify error handling for invalid proposal IDs.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loading usage and return details with no wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return values (aggregate totals). Lacks response format example or error behavior, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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 has 100% coverage with description already explaining proposalId. Description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it returns aggregate vote totals for an AAVE governance proposal, with specific examples like 'How did proposal #X vote?' and distinguishes from siblings like get_governance_proposals.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use examples and notes that individual per-voter records are not indexed, guiding the agent to avoid misuse.

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