Check governance proposal status, including active proposal, vote tally, and quorum progress. Specify a proposal ID to retrieve details for a particular proposal.
Check the status of governance proposals. Returns the active proposal (if any) with vote tally and quorum progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proposal_id | No | Specific proposal ID to check (omit for active proposal) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v11.13.9v11.13.8v11.13.0v11.9.2v8.1.0v8.0.0v7.6.1v7.5.9v6.6.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation by using 'check', but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or require permissions. Output behavior is partially described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately covers purpose and return value. Minor improvement could be clarifying behavior when proposal_id is provided vs omitted, but it is already implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and clearly explains the parameter. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, only restating the behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks governance proposal status and specifies the output (active proposal, vote tally, quorum progress). It is distinct from sibling governance tools like sage_gov_propose and sage_gov_vote.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking proposal status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.