Skip to main content
Glama
macula-io

Macula MCP

by macula-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

mesh_find_record

Fetch a verified DHT record by its 32-byte hex storage key to retrieve type, signer, timestamps, payload, and decoded procedure fields; returns found:false if unavailable.

Instructions

Fetch one verified DHT record by its 32-byte storage key: its type, signer (key_id), times and payload, a procedure advertisement's fields decoded. found: false when the stations hold none.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_hexYes32-byte DHT storage key as hex (64 chars) -- e.g. a procedure's key, or a key already seen in a mesh_find_records_by_type result. NOT the same as a record's own signer (key_id).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.37.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / host
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Station to connect through, \"host[:port]\". Defaults to station-de-frankfurt.macula.io:4433.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / key_hex / description
      Previous value: -"32-byte DHT storage key as hex (64 chars) -- e.g. from ProcedureKey(procedure_uri) on the publishing side, or a key already seen in a mesh_find_records_by_type result. This is NOT the same as a record's own advertiser/signer key."New value: +"32-byte DHT storage key as hex (64 chars) -- e.g. a procedure's key, or a key already seen in a mesh_find_records_by_type result. NOT the same as a record's own signer (key_id)."
  2. First observedv0.28.7

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it enumerates the returned fields (type, signer/key_id, times, payload, decoded procedure advertisement), which substitutes for the absent output schema, and discloses the not-found behavior ('found: false when the stations hold none'). It omits any mention of side effects, permissions, or whether the lookup touches network stations beyond the implication of 'stations'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the colon cleanly scopes what is returned. Slightly dense in the middle enumeration, but every clause adds information.

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?

For a single-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload and the not-found case. What remains missing — permissions and any station/network side effects — is minor for a lookup operation.

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% and the schema already documents the 64-char hex format, the example sources, and the key_id disambiguation note. The description repeats '32-byte storage key' without adding format or syntax meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Fetch one verified DHT record by its 32-byte storage key'. The singular 'one' and the key-based lookup implicitly distinguish it from the plural siblings mesh_find_records and mesh_find_records_by_type, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 example 'a procedure's key, or a key already seen in a mesh_find_records_by_type result' usefully routes the agent to a sibling for obtaining input, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative statement (e.g. look up by type vs by known key). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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