Skip to main content
Glama
kukapay

dao-proposals-mcp

by kukapay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

DAO Proposals MCP

An MCP server that aggregates live governance proposals from major DAOs enabling AI agents to track, analyze, and act on decentralized decision-making in real time, powered by Snapshot.

GitHub License Python Version Status

Features

  • Tools:

    • list_spaces: Fetches a list of up to 10 recent Snapshot spaces, including their IDs, names, and descriptions.

    • list_proposals: Retrieves up to 10 recent proposals for a given Snapshot space, including proposal IDs, titles, states, creation dates, and end dates.

    • get_proposal_details: Fetches detailed information about a specific proposal, including its title, body, state, choices, scores, and vote counts.

  • Prompt:

    • summarize_proposals: Generates a prompt to summarize recent proposals for a specified Snapshot space, leveraging the list_proposals tool.

Related MCP server: thegraph-mcp

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.10+

  • uv (recommended) or pip for dependency management

Installation

  1. Clone the repository:

    git clone https://github.com/kukapay/dao-proposals-mcp.git
cd dao-proposals-mcp

  2. Install dependencies:

    uv sync

  3. Installing to Claude Desktop:

    Install the server as a Claude Desktop application:

    uv run mcp install main.py --name "DAO Proposals"

    Configuration file as a reference:

    {
   "mcpServers": {
       "DAO Proposals": {
           "command": "uv",
           "args": [ "--directory", "/path/to/dao-proposals-mcp", "run", "main.py" ]
       }
   }
}

    Replace /path/to/dao-proposals-mcp with your actual installation path.

Usage

Example Interactions

  1. List Available Spaces:

    • Prompt:

      Can you show me a list of the most recent Snapshot spaces?

    • Output:

      Space ID: ens.eth
Name: ENS
About: Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is a decentralized naming system...
---
Space ID: aave.eth
Name: Aave
About: Aave is a decentralized lending protocol...
---

  2. List Proposals for a Space:

    • Prompt:

      Please list the recent proposals for the ENS DAO (space ID: ens.eth).

    • Output:

      Proposal ID: 0x123...
Title: Proposal to Update ENS Governance
State: Active
Created: 2025-07-01 12:00:00
End: 2025-07-08 12:00:00
---

  3. Get Proposal Details:

    • Prompt:

      Can you give me detailed information about the proposal with ID 0x123...?

    • Output:

      Proposal ID: 0x123...
Title: Proposal to Update ENS Governance
State: Active
Created: 2025-07-01 12:00:00
End: 2025-07-08 12:00:00
Choices: Yes, No
Scores: [1500, 500]
Votes: 2000
------
This proposal aims to update the governance structure of ENS...

  4. Summarize Proposals:

    • Prompt:

      Summarize the recent proposals for the DAO with space ID 'ens.eth'.

    • Output:

      I'll use the list_proposals tool to fetch the proposals for ens.eth and provide a concise summary of their key points.

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License. See the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

3 tools
get_proposal_detailsB
Fetch detailed information for a specific proposal.

Parameters:
    proposal_id (str): The unique identifier of the proposal.

Returns:
    A formatted string containing detailed information about the proposal.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposal_idYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 burden. It states it 'fetches' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the proposal_id is invalid. The description lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear sections for parameters and returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral details. Without annotations, it should provide more context on usage constraints and error cases to be fully adequate.

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 description adds meaning by specifying that 'proposal_id' is a 'unique identifier', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format or constraints.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed information for a specific proposal'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_proposals' or 'list_spaces', which likely serve different purposes (listing vs. fetching details).

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?

The description implies usage when detailed information for a specific proposal is needed, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_proposals' or 'list_spaces'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

list_proposalsC
Fetch a list of recent proposals for a given Snapshot space.

Parameters:
    space_id (str): The unique identifier of the Snapshot space (e.g., 'ens.eth').

Returns:
    A formatted string containing details of up to 10 recent proposals.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
space_idYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching 'up to 10 recent proposals', which implies a limit and recency constraint, but doesn't cover other key behaviors such as error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter and return details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse, though minor improvements in flow could elevate it further.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value details), the description is reasonably complete for basic use. However, it lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral aspects like error handling or limits, which are important for a tool interacting with external data (Snapshot space), leaving room for improvement in overall completeness.

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?

The description adds some meaning by explaining that 'space_id' is 'The unique identifier of the Snapshot space (e.g., 'ens.eth')', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's bare 'Space Id' title. However, with schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, this addition is minimal but sufficient to meet the baseline, as the schema alone lacks descriptive detail.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch a list') and resource ('recent proposals for a given Snapshot space'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_proposal_details' (which fetches details of a single proposal) or 'list_spaces' (which lists spaces rather than proposals), but the specificity is adequate for understanding the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_proposal_details' or 'list_spaces'. It mentions 'recent proposals' but doesn't specify criteria for 'recent' or explain why one might choose this over other tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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

list_spacesB
Fetch a list of available Snapshot spaces.

Parameters:
    None

Returns:
    A formatted string containing space IDs and names.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('formatted string containing space IDs and names') but doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how the data is structured beyond IDs and names.

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?

The description is perfectly concise and well-structured with three brief sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, clarifying parameters, and describing returns. There's no wasted language or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that this is a simple listing tool with 0 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like read-only nature or potential constraints, and while the output schema will document return structure, the description could better prepare the agent for what to expect.

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 description explicitly states 'Parameters: None', which adds clarity beyond what the empty input schema already indicates. With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, this provides complete parameter information, though the baseline for 0 parameters is 4 rather than 5 since there's minimal semantic value to add.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Snapshot spaces'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_proposals', which appears to be a similar listing operation for a different resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_proposals' or 'get_proposal_details'. It simply states what the tool does without any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updates
    • First observedget_proposal_details
    • First observedlist_proposals
    • First observedlist_spaces
Deploy Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_proposal_details fetches details for a specific proposal, list_proposals lists recent proposals for a space, and list_spaces lists available spaces. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_proposal_details, list_proposals, list_spaces) using snake_case. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a DAO proposals domain, as it lacks operations like creating, updating, or voting on proposals. While the tools cover basic read functions, the scope suggests more actions would be needed for full workflow support.

Completeness2/5

The toolset is severely incomplete for managing DAO proposals, as it only provides read operations (get and list) without any write capabilities such as creating, updating, deleting, or voting on proposals. This creates significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows in this domain.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers