@gblin-protocol/mcp-server

get_governance_state

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify GBLIN protocol governance state before trust-sensitive agent actions: confirm Timelock ownership, delays, role counts, pending proposals, and optional operation status; read-only.

Instructions

Verify GBLIN protocol governance state: confirms whether the GBLIN vault is owned by the 48h Timelock, reads the timelock's min delay and grace period, reports role member counts, and surfaces any pending asset-addition proposal on the index contract. If an operation_id is provided, also reports the status of that specific timelock operation. Read-only — use this to gate trust-sensitive agent actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operation_id`	No	Optional 0x-prefixed 32-byte hex id of a specific timelock operation to inspect.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lens`	No
`owner`	Yes
`vault`	Yes
`timelock`	Yes	Address and minimum delay of the timelock, read on chain.
`verification`	No
`fee_recipient`	No
`trust_summary`	No
`pending_handover`	No	A pending ownership transfer, or null.
`owner_is_timelock`	Yes
`owner_is_renounced`	Yes
`pending_timelock_operation`	No	A scheduled timelock operation affecting ownership, or null.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.5Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[]
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "fee_recipient": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lens": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "owner": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "owner_is_renounced": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "owner_is_timelock": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "pending_handover": {
+      "description": "A pending ownership transfer, or null.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "pending_timelock_operation": {
+      "description": "A scheduled timelock operation affecting ownership, or null.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "timelock": {
+      "description": "Address and minimum delay of the timelock, read on chain.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "trust_summary": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "vault": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verification": {
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "vault",
+    "owner",
+    "owner_is_timelock",
+    "owner_is_renounced",
+    "timelock"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.2May 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's 'Read-only' restatement is redundant. It does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the conditional path when operation_id is supplied, and the fact that it reads across the vault, timelock, and index contracts. No auth or rate-limit disclosure, but little is needed for a read.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core enumeration is front-loaded before the conditional parameter behavior and the usage hint. Every clause maps to a distinct capability the agent needs for selection.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, and it appropriately focuses on scope, conditional behavior, and usage. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this one-parameter read tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the single optional operation_id with 100% coverage. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral consequence of supplying it ('also reports the status of that specific timelock operation'), which clarifies that the parameter is additive rather than required.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('GBLIN protocol governance state') and then enumerates the exact checks performed: vault ownership by the 48h Timelock, min delay, grace period, role member counts, and pending asset-addition proposals. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_treasury_state or get_auction_state without opening either schema.

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 closing sentence provides a concrete use case: 'use this to gate trust-sensitive agent actions,' which tells the agent the decision context in which this tool belongs. It stops short of naming alternatives or an explicit when-not, so it earns a clear-context 4 rather than a full 5.

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