Propose accumulated graph operations as a DAO edit for community voting by providing the DAO space contract address, space ID, and optional voting mode.
Propose accumulated ops as a DAO edit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the edit | |
| daoSpaceId | Yes | DAO space ID (0x hex bytes16) | |
| votingMode | No | Voting mode | FAST |
| daoSpaceAddress | Yes | DAO space contract address (0x hex) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only restates the high-level action and does not disclose side effects such as whether it creates an on-chain proposal, consumes the accumulated ops, requires a configured wallet, or is irreversible. The annotation readOnlyHint=false only indicates mutation, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior and does not.
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 short sentence with no filler words, and the action is front-loaded. It is concise but perhaps too terse to be maximally helpful; the lack of detail hurts other dimensions rather than conciseness.
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 mutating DAO-proposal tool with no output schema and only a one-bit annotation, this description is incomplete: it never explains where 'accumulated ops' come from, what happens after proposing, how votingMode influences execution, or how this differs from the other propose_* siblings. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or documentation before calling it confidently.
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?
All four parameters are already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds no extra meaning about how name, daoSpaceAddress, daoSpaceId, or votingMode relate to the edit proposal, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema covers all parameters.
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 names a specific action ('Propose') and a distinct object ('accumulated ops' as a 'DAO edit'), so it is not a tautology and is fairly clear. However, it does not define what 'accumulated ops' are or explicitly distinguish this from sibling propose_* tools, so it lacks full differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like propose_accept_editor, propose_remove_editor, or vote_on_proposal. The phrase 'accumulated ops' only vaguely implies a batching use case; there are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.