dexe-mcp

Live proposal state + required quorum

dexe_proposal_state

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a DeXe proposal's state, required quorum, and votes in one multicall; required quorum is an absolute weight met per side by For or Against votes.

Instructions

Read-only. Reads getProposalState, getProposalRequiredQuorum and the proposal's votes in one multicall. requiredQuorum is an ABSOLUTE vote weight, not a percentage; quorum is per-side — either For or Against clearing it reaches quorum.

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>",
      "proposalId": "<proposalId>"
    },
    "name": "dexe_proposal_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chainId`	No	Chain to read from: 56 mainnet, 97 testnet. Needs an RPC for it. Default: the configured chain.
`govPool`	Yes	GovPool contract address
`proposalId`	Yes	On-chain proposal id, 1-indexed decimal (dexe_proposal_list).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	Yes
`govPool`	Yes
`votesFor`	Yes
`proposalId`	Yes
`stateIndex`	Yes
`votesAgainst`	Yes
`quorumReached`	Yes
`requiredQuorum`	Yes
`votesForFormatted`	No
`votesShortOfQuorum`	Yes
`votesAgainstFormatted`	No
`quorumAttainmentForPct`	Yes
`requiredQuorumFormatted`	No
`quorumAttainmentAgainstPct`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.37.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not needed for the safety profile. It still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that three on-chain reads are batched into one multicall and clarifies that `requiredQuorum` is an absolute vote weight rather than a percentage and is evaluated per-side. It does not mention failure modes such as a nonexistent proposalId.

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?

The safety profile is front-loaded in the first word, followed by what is read, then the non-obvious quorum semantics. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the backtick-heavy jargon makes it slightly terse for an agent unfamiliar with the contract surface.

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 return-value shape need not be explained, and an idempotent read-only call needs little behavioral detail. The critical interpretation gotcha (absolute weight, per-side quorum) is covered, leaving only minor gaps like error behavior for missing proposals.

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, govPool, and proposalId are already documented, including the mainnet/testnet values and the 1-indexed decimal format. The description adds no parameter-level guidance of its own; its semantic contribution concerns the returned quorum value, not the inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear read verb and the exact resources fetched: `getProposalState`, `getProposalRequiredQuorum`, and the proposal's votes in one multicall. That is well beyond a restated title, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as `dexe_proposal_list` or `dexe_proposal_catalog`.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting an already-existing proposal's live status and quorum. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of prerequisites (valid proposalId, deployed govPool), so the routing signal remains implicit.

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

Deploy Server