dexe-mcp

List every proposal type DeXe supports

dexe_proposal_catalog

Read-only

Browse every DeXe proposal type—external, internal validator, and off-chain—with target, IPFS metadata needs, gating, and builder availability; filter by category or implemented status.

Instructions

Read-only, local. Every proposal type DeXe supports (external, internal validator, off-chain) with target, IPFS-metadata need, gating and builder tool.

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": "dexe_proposal_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	No	Restrict to one category; 'all' returns the whole catalog.	all
`implementedOnly`	No	True to list only types that have an MCP builder.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`types`	Yes
`externalMetadataShape`	No
`internalMetadataShape`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.37.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's "Read-only, local" is consistent with them, adding the useful implication that no RPC/network call is made. Beyond that it does not say whether the catalog is static or config-dependent, nor whether any auth/DAO context is needed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only/local qualifier and then the catalog contents; no filler. The telegraphic fragment style is slightly clipped but genuinely efficient for a reference-listing tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return values is unnecessary, and the description plus annotations plus full parameter docs cover calling correctness for a simple two-optional-parameter catalog read. The only real omission is routing guidance relative to the other proposal tools.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema and a baseline 3 applies. The description does add mild corroboration by naming the three categories that map to the category enum, and "builder tool" hints at implementedOnly, but it gives no filtering semantics beyond the schema.

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?

"Every proposal type DeXe supports (external, internal validator, off-chain) with target, IPFS-metadata need, gating and builder tool" names the resource and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what the payload looks like. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling dexe_proposal_list (which lists proposals, not types), leaving that separation to inference from the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent to consult this catalog before calling dexe_proposal_create, or how it differs from dexe_proposal_list — the use case must be inferred entirely from the title.

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

Deploy Server