sa-ecosystem-node

List proposals

list_proposals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a live, read-only page of public galaxy proposals with IDs, PIP numbers, statuses, dates, and vote totals; supports cursor pagination plus status and PIP filters.

Instructions

Live read of the public galaxy proposal list. Returns one page of id, PIP number, status, dates, and the published vote totals. The default page size is 20 and the maximum is 100. Pass nextCursor back as cursor for the next page. Read-only.

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": "list_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size. Default 20. Maximum 100.
`cursor`	No	Proposal id from the previous page's nextCursor.
`status`	No
`pipNumber`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real behavioral detail: one page per call, default 20 / max 100 page size, and the cursor round-trip mechanism. The 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with the annotations, which is the only wasted disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the pagination contract, with no filler. The closing 'Read-only' sentence and the repeated page-size limits are mild duplication of structured data.

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?

There is no output schema, so listing the returned fields is necessary and done well, and pagination behavior is fully explained. What is missing is any explanation of the status and pipNumber filters, which an agent would need before using them.

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 coverage is 50%: limit and cursor are documented in the schema and the description usefully reinforces the cursor round-trip ('Pass nextCursor back as cursor'). However, the two filter parameters, status and pipNumber, receive no explanation at all (no match semantics, case sensitivity, or whether they combine), so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Live read of the public galaxy proposal list') and enumerates the returned fields (id, PIP number, status, dates, vote totals), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_proposal_votes or pip_tracker, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Pagination usage is spelled out precisely ('Pass nextCursor back as cursor for the next page'), but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_proposal_votes or pip_tracker, nor any prerequisite or filtering context. Usage is implied as browsing the proposal list rather than stated.

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