Clink MCP Server

list_proposals

Retrieve voting proposals for a Clink group to monitor status and vote counts. Filter by open or finalized proposals and set result limits.

Instructions

List voting proposals for a Clink group. Shows status and vote counts.

    Args:
        group: The group slug (e.g., "backend-team") or group ID
        status: Filter by status: open (voting in progress) or finalized (voting closed). Default: all.
        limit: Maximum proposals to return (default: 20)

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": {
      "group": "<group>"
    },
    "name": "list_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group`	Yes
`status`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jan 29, 2026

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. It mentions the tool lists proposals with status and vote counts, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and basic usage, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling. With no annotations, it could benefit from more transparency, but it's adequate for a listing tool.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'group' as 'The group slug (e.g., "backend-team") or group ID', 'status' with allowed values 'open' or 'finalized' and default behavior, and 'limit' with its default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like validation rules.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List voting proposals for a Clink group. Shows status and vote counts.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('voting proposals'), and scope ('for a Clink group'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_proposal' or 'create_proposal', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 by mentioning filtering options ('status: open or finalized') and default behaviors ('Default: all', 'default: 20'), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_proposal' for single proposals or 'create_proposal' for creating new ones. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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