seneschal_board_readReturn the ranked notices on a board (boosted first by decayed weight, then most recent). Free to call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | Yes | Which board to read. | |
| limit | No | Max notices (default 50). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the ranking order (boosted first by decayed weight, then most recent) and the cost aspect ("Free to call"), which are valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only safety or mention side effects, though the verb "Return" suggests a non-mutating operation.
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 two short sentences that front-load the core action and purpose. The parenthetical adds necessary detail about ranking without unnecessary words, and every element earns its place.
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 read tool with a simple schema, the description covers the primary behavior and return ordering. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by describing the output as "ranked notices." Minor gaps exist around pagination and error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool type.
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?
The input schema provides descriptive text for both parameters (board enum and limit), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ("Return") on a clear resource ("ranked notices on a board"), and the parenthetical on ranking ("boosted first by decayed weight, then most recent") further differentiates it from sibling tools like board_post or board_list. The title also reinforces readability ("read a board (FREE)").
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 fetching board notices but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like seneschal_board_list or seneschal_board_post. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so guidance is limited to the inferred reading purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.
Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.
At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.
Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.