Skip to main content
Glama
macula-io

Macula MCP

by macula-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

mesh_find_records

Fetch every verified record stored at a DHT key, such as procedure advertisements from different providers, and report how many did not verify.

Instructions

Fetch EVERY verified record stored at a DHT key (e.g. every procedure_advertisement one procedure has from different providers), and how many did not verify.

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavior: it returns verified records AND a count of ones that failed to verify, implying a filtering/verification step. But it omits whether this hits the network (latency), permission needs, or whether it is a pure read, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource. The parenthetical example earns its place by clarifying a non-obvious scope, and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more. It partially compensates by describing the return (records plus a non-verified count), and 'Fetch' implies a read, but it leaves return format and whether it is a network-bound read unspecified.

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%; the schema already fully documents key_hex, including the crucial warning that it is NOT the record's signer key_id. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema's baseline, so 3 is the correct baseline.

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+resource: 'Fetch EVERY verified record stored at a DHT key', and the parenthetical example (all procedure_advertisements from different providers) makes the intent concrete. The word 'EVERY' implies scope contrasting with the singular sibling mesh_find_record, but the sibling is never named outright.

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 use case ('every procedure_advertisement one procedure has from different providers') implies when to reach for this over mesh_find_record, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative is stated. The agent must infer the distinction from the singular vs. plural sibling names.

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