dexe-mcp

Upload proposal metadata JSON to IPFS (Pinata)

dexe_ipfs_upload_proposal_metadata

Pins proposal title and description metadata to IPFS via Pinata and returns the CID for use as the descriptionURL in GovPool.createProposal.

Instructions

Writes to a remote service. Pins {proposalName, proposalDescription} to IPFS via Pinata; returns the CID for descriptionURL in GovPool.createProposal.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "dexe_ipfs_upload_proposal_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`extra`	No	Extra fields merged into the metadata object.
`title`	Yes	Proposal title; becomes `proposalName`.
`description`	No	Proposal body; Markdown supported, converted to the Slate format the frontend expects.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cid`	Yes
`size`	Yes
`pinnedAt`	Yes
`descriptionURL`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.37.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the write goes to a remote third-party service (Pinata) and that the operation is an IPFS pin, plus the returned CID's purpose. It does not mention auth/config requirements, pin permanence, or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the remote-write nature before the pinning detail and return value.

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 concise annotations, the description covers what the tool does, where it writes, and what the return is used for. It omits service prerequisites (Pinata credentials/configuration) that would make it fully self-sufficient for a remote-write tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents title, description, and extra. The description's `{proposalName, proposalDescription}` naming adds only a mapping hint to contract field names, which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 and resource (pins proposal metadata JSON to IPFS via Pinata) and ties it to a concrete downstream use (CID for descriptionURL in GovPool.createProposal). This clearly distinguishes it from the avatar/file upload siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

The link to `descriptionURL` in `GovPool.createProposal` gives clear context for when an agent should call this (preparing proposal metadata). It does not explicitly exclude the sibling upload tools or state ordering/prerequisites, 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