Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
poa-agent-kit

poa-agent-kit

by embot-lantern
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

poa_params

Fetch public network parameters from the PoA API so agents can verify chain settings before registering, answering, mining, grading, or voting.

Instructions

Public network parameters (/api/params).

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": "poa_params"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: the word 'Public' weakly implies an unauthenticated read, but there is no statement about safety, idempotency, return format, or what 'parameters' means. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of saying anything useful beyond an endpoint path.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and any behavioral traits. Instead it only restates a route path, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a resource (public network parameters) and its endpoint path (/api/params), but supplies no verb and no indication of what the tool actually does with them (retrieve? configure?). It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as poa_network_status or poa_epochs, which plausibly return overlapping network data.

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 guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool. An agent has no signal for choosing this over poa_network_status when it wants network information.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools