Retrieve comprehensive details for any Celo governance proposal by ID, including its full content and voting history. Quickly access proposal specifics to inform decisions or track outcomes.
Get detailed information about a specific governance proposal including its content and voting history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proposal_id | Yes | The governance proposal ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it returns 'detailed information' and 'voting history', but no side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or data freshness. Lacks depth for a read tool.
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?
Single sentence, 13 words, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
No output schema, so description should detail return values. Only mentions 'content and voting history' vaguely, insufficient for an agent to understand output structure.
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 coverage is 100%, and description adds identical meaning ('The governance proposal ID') to existing schema. No additional semantics beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'governance proposal', and scope 'details including content and voting history'. Distinguishes from sibling 'get_governance_proposals' (list) and other detail tools.
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?
Implies use for specific proposal via proposal_id, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or exclusions. Context signals show many siblings, but no differentiation provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.