Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp0x MCP

cp0x MCP

Official
by cp0x-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List cp0x open-source repositories

list_cp0x_open_source
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists cp0x public open-source repositories on GitHub, including permissionless DeFi interfaces and tools; filter by interface or project kind.

Instructions

List public open-source repositories of cp0x: permissionless DeFi interfaces and tools, from GitHub. Use this when looking for cp0x interfaces, tools or source code.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_cp0x_open_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoRepository kind to include; omit to include both kinds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the repositories are public, open-source, and from GitHub, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or return shape; with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool purpose and followed by usage guidance. There is no wasted text.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented optional parameter, the description provides enough context for selection. It does not describe return values, which would be useful since no output schema exists, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The single optional 'kind' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including enum values and the effect of omitting it. The description does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('public open-source repositories of cp0x ... from GitHub'), with clear domain scope. The open-source/public/GitHub framing distinguishes it from sibling tools about restricted interfaces or x402 resources.

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?

Gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when looking for cp0x interfaces, tools or source code.' It does not name when-not conditions or specific alternative siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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