dexe-mcp

List proposals on a GovPool

dexe_proposal_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists DAO proposals from a GovPool contract with pagination and per-proposal quorum progress, showing whether For or Against votes reach the required absolute quorum.

Instructions

Read-only. Calls GovPool.getProposals(offset, limit) and adds quorum progress per proposal. Quorum is per-side — either For or Against clearing the target reaches it; requiredQuorum is an ABSOLUTE vote weight, not a percentage.

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": {
      "govPool": "<govPool>"
    },
    "name": "dexe_proposal_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max proposals per page.
`offset`	No	Proposals to skip; page with `nextOffset`.
`chainId`	No	Chain to read from: 56 mainnet, 97 testnet. Needs an RPC for it. Default: the configured chain.
`govPool`	Yes	GovPool contract address

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	Yes
`total`	No
`offset`	Yes
`govPool`	Yes
`returned`	No
`proposals`	Yes
`truncated`	No
`nextOffset`	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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context by disclosing the underlying call and clarifying that quorum is per-side and that requiredQuorum is an absolute weight rather than a percentage – a genuinely useful semantic caveat. It does not mention RPC dependency or pagination termination at the description level, keeping it at a solid middle score.

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 'Read-only.' and the exact underlying call. The parenthetical '(offset, limit)' mildly restates what the schema already names, but there is no padding or hedging.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description still volunteers the key output interpretation (per-side quorum, absolute requiredQuorum). The main gap is guidance on selecting this tool versus its proposal siblings, which is not strictly a completeness issue for invocation correctness.

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 chainId, offset, limit and govPool are already fully documented, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Its 'requiredQuorum is an ABSOLUTE vote weight' note concerns the output, not the inputs, so it does not lift this dimension.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Calls GovPool.getProposals(offset, limit)') plus a value-add ('adds quorum progress per proposal'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name distinguishing siblings such as dexe_proposal_catalog or dexe_proposal_state, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

The description never says when to choose this over the proposal-oriented siblings (catalog, state, vote) or what preconditions apply beyond the required govPool parameter. Usage is only inferable from the word 'List' in the title, which is not in the description body.

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

Deploy Server