Skip to main content
Glama
michaeljfazio

cardano-node-mcp

by michaeljfazio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create Update Committee Action

cardano_governance_action_create_update_committee
Idempotent

Create a Cardano governance action to update the constitutional committee by adding or removing members and setting the quorum threshold.

Instructions

Create a governance action to update the constitutional committee.

Args:

  • anchor_url (string): Anchor URL

  • anchor_data_hash (string): Anchor data hash

  • deposit (number): Deposit in lovelace

  • return_addr (string): Stake address for deposit return

  • threshold (string): Quorum threshold as "numerator/denominator"

  • remove_cc_cold_verification_key_hashes (string[], optional): CC member key hashes to remove

  • add_cc_cold_verification_key_hashes (string[], optional): CC members to add as "key_hash,expiry_epoch"

  • prev_governance_action_tx_id (string, optional): Previous action tx ID

  • prev_governance_action_index (number, optional): Previous action index

  • out_file (string): Output path

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depositYesDeposit in lovelace
out_fileYesOutput path
thresholdYesQuorum threshold as "numerator/denominator"
anchor_urlYesAnchor URL
return_addrYesStake address for deposit return
anchor_data_hashYesAnchor data hash
prev_governance_action_indexNoPrevious action index
prev_governance_action_tx_idNoPrevious action tx ID
add_cc_cold_verification_key_hashesNoCC members to add as "key_hash,expiry_epoch"
remove_cc_cold_verification_key_hashesNoCC member key hashes to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema provide—it does not explain permissions, on-chain effects, or that it writes to a file rather than submitting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the subsequent Args list is entirely redundant with the 100%-covered input schema. This bloats the description without adding value, making it less concise than it could be.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 10-parameter governance action creation tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context: when to use this action versus other create actions, what the output file contains, and whether the action is submitted on-chain. It is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without further inference.

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 description's Args list merely duplicates schema descriptions (e.g., 'Anchor URL', 'Deposit in lovelace'). No extra meaning, format hints, or constraints are added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Create) and resource (governance action to update the constitutional committee), clearly distinguishing it from other governance action creation siblings like create_info or create_constitution. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for preferring them, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required committee keys or stake address), nor does it compare this action to other governance action creation tools. It merely lists arguments.

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