No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 32 tools
Most tools target a distinct read model or write action, and overlapping pairs like get_register/get_register_pack or get_adoption_trends/get_adoption_snapshot are separable by their descriptions. The main risk is the sheer number of get_* views, which requires careful reading to avoid selecting the wrong derived read.
The dominant pattern is get_<resource>/list_<resource> for reads and imperative snake_case for writes, with all names lower_snake_case. Deviations like second, vote, whoami, my_suggestions, and how_to_participate break the uniformity slightly, but the overall convention remains predictable.
At 32 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for a single MCP server, even granting a complex governance/evidence domain. Several specialized read-only views could likely be consolidated or grouped without losing clarity.
The core proposal lifecycle is well covered: propose, second, mint/submit/abort measurement, vote, plus read/audit views. The main gap is an explicit amend/supersede proposal write action, since get_history tracks supersession hops but no tool appears to create one.