dexe-mcp

Predict addresses for a future DAO deployment

dexe_dao_predict_addresses

Read-onlyIdempotent

Predict the six CREATE2 contract addresses a DAO will use before deployment from its deployer and unique pool name. Read-only lookup for pre-deployment planning.

Instructions

Read-only. Calls PoolFactory.predictGovAddresses(deployer, poolName) — the six CREATE2-predicted contract addresses for a DAO before it is deployed.

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": {
      "deployer": "<deployer>",
      "poolName": "<poolName>"
    },
    "name": "dexe_dao_predict_addresses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chainId`	No	Chain to read from: 56 mainnet, 97 testnet. Needs an RPC for it. Default: the configured chain.
`deployer`	Yes	Address that will send the deployGovPool tx (tx.origin)
`poolName`	Yes	Unique pool name — part of the CREATE2 salt

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`govPool`	Yes
`govToken`	Yes
`expertNft`	Yes
`govTokenSale`	Yes
`nftMultiplier`	Yes
`distributionProposal`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.37.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the result is deterministic (CREATE2) and consists of exactly six addresses, and it names the on-chain call being made. It does not mention chain/RPC requirements even though the chainId parameter implies one.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only guarantee and the underlying contract call. The only slack is the redundant 'Read-only' lead-in given the annotations.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation and parameter coverage, the description only needs to establish intent and mechanism, which it does. A brief note on how the six addresses map to DAO components (or that they are useless unless the deployer and poolName match the eventual deployment) would make it fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the chainId RPC note and poolName's role in the CREATE2 salt. The description restates the two required parameters via the function signature but adds no new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Calls PoolFactory.predictGovAddresses ... six CREATE2-predicted contract addresses for a DAO') and ties it to the pre-deployment moment, which implicitly separates it from the deploy path. It stops short of naming dexe_dao_create as the counterpart, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'before it is deployed' signals the use case (preview addresses prior to deployment), which is genuinely useful context. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do with the result, and no named alternative for actually performing the deployment.

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

Deploy Server