Given a Celestia feature or capability description, find the matching CIP(s) by searching titles and bodies. Celestia-specific. Use to answer "is there a CIP for X?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feature | Yes | Feature description, e.g. "blob size limit", "namespace format", "light client sampling". |
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 that searching happens over "titles and bodies" and that the tool is "Celestia-specific," which is helpful. However, it does not disclose output format, behavior when no match is found, or matching semantics beyond basic search.
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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then gives a practical usage example.
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 single-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input, the search domain, and the expected outcome. It does not mention edge cases like no matches, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the feature parameter with examples like "blob size limit" and "light client sampling." The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: "find the matching CIP(s)" by searching titles and bodies, and explicitly scopes it to Celestia. It also states the intended user question — "is there a CIP for X?" — which helps distinguish it from generic search tools and from get_cip/list_cips.
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 gives a clear usage trigger: "Use to answer 'is there a CIP for X?'." This gives an agent an explicit condition for selecting this tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct content types and actions, and descriptions carefully carve out boundaries (e.g. get_network_state vs get_network_stats, get_discussion vs get_github_discussion). However, the overlapping get_/find_/search_ families plus the very similar network_state/network_stats names leave some edge cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.
The dominant convention is verb_noun (find_*, get_*, list_*, search_*), and get/list/find roughly map to id-based retrieval, browsing, and discovery. Deviations like learning_path, ecosystem_dependency_graph, and semantic_search break the pattern, and the get_ vs find_ vs search_ boundaries are not perfectly predictable.
43 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server; even though the Celestia knowledge domain is broad, the surface is heavy and will increase selection cost. Most tools are individually useful, but the set would benefit from consolidation, e.g. merging release tools or search variants.
The server covers an unusually broad range of content types—CIPs, docs, forum, GitHub issues/discussions, releases, videos, whitepapers, ecosystem, and network state—with list/get/search access for most. Minor gaps remain, such as no dedicated blog retrieval and get_issue_status only returning status rather than full issue body, but core knowledge workflows have no dead ends.