Skip to main content
Glama
Sofiia7

nadbounty-mcp

by Sofiia7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_bounty

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a bounty's full on-chain details, derived status, description, and submitted work from IPFS to review delivery before approval.

Instructions

Get one bounty in full: every on-chain field, a derived status, and (by default) its description and, for a submitted single-taker job, the delivered work fetched from IPFS. Review a delivery here before approve_bounty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYesOn-chain job id of the bounty, a decimal integer such as "48". Find ids with list_open_bounties or get_my_bounties.
includeContentNoFetch the description and the submission text from IPFS (can take a few seconds). Default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / includeContent
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Fetch the description and the submission text from IPFS (can take a few seconds). Default true.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / jobId / description
      Previous value: -"The bounty's jobId, as a string (it's a uint256 on-chain)."New value: +"On-chain job id of the bounty, a decimal integer such as \"48\". Find ids with list_open_bounties or get_my_bounties."
    • addedInput schema / properties / jobId / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d{1,18}$"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: a *derived* status field, and conditional retrieval of submission text 'for a submitted single-taker job'. It omits any note on failure modes or auth, and the IPFS latency caveat lives in the schema rather than here.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get one bounty in full') and then attaches the return content and the workflow pointer. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or the schema.

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 the description must characterize returns, and it does so well by enumerating on-chain fields, derived status, and IPFS-fetched content. Missing only edge-case behavior (missing id, unreachable IPFS), which is a minor gap for a two-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100%, so both jobId and includeContent are fully documented in the schema itself, including the default and the IPFS-latency warning. The description's 'by default' phrasing adds nothing beyond the schema's documented default, so the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one bounty in full') and enumerates exactly what comes back: on-chain fields, a derived status, the description, and delivered work from IPFS. The 'one bounty' framing plus the mention of approve_bounty cleanly separates it from the list-style siblings (list_open_bounties, get_my_bounties) and from get_contest.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete workflow cue: 'Review a delivery here before approve_bounty', which tells the agent this is the verification step preceding approval. It does not state exclusions (e.g., use get_contest for contests, use list_open_bounties to discover ids), but the context is clear enough to place the tool.

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