sa-ecosystem-node

PIP tracker

pip_tracker

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read payments and milestones from the public Council Tracker sheet and keep blank cells null for accurate, read-only reporting.

Instructions

Payments and milestones from the public Council Tracker sheet. Blank cells stay null. 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": "pip_tracker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The one genuine addition is 'Blank cells stay null', which tells the agent how missing data is represented, plus the fact that the source is a public external sheet — but nothing on staleness, refresh cadence, or failure behavior for an open-world source.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the data source, no filler. Minor waste in 'Read-only', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than earning its place.

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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers the source and null semantics, but leaves the return shape unstated — whether payments and milestones come back as separate collections or one table, and how an always-null-heavy sheet should be interpreted. Nothing on what happens when the external sheet is unavailable.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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

Purpose3/5

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

Names a specific data resource (payments and milestones from the public Council Tracker sheet) but no verb — it never says whether it lists, fetches, or summarizes them. It also does not distinguish itself from close siblings like dao_payments or treasury_history, so an agent cannot tell which to prefer from the description alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative tool. With overlapping siblings such as dao_payments and dao_treasury_flows in the toolset, this omission is material.

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