CC Explorer MCP Server

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 only states the basic purpose without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a retrieval 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.

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

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a governance vote') and efficiently specifies the lookup method ('by tracking CID'). Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what a 'governance vote' entails, what data is returned, or any behavioral traits. While the schema covers the input, the overall context for proper tool use is lacking.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'trackingCid'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it merely restates that tracking CID is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a governance vote'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by tracking CID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'governance_list' by focusing on individual retrieval rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get tools like 'consensus_get' or 'contract_get'.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'governance_get' instead of 'governance_list' or other retrieval tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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