List file/PDF attachments of one Celestia Improvement Proposal (CIP) — e.g. signed vote records, supporting docs — by CIP id. Celestia governance only. Get the id from search or list_cips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | CIP ID: "0001", "CIP-0042" |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or lack of side effects. The examples add context about attachment types, but behavioral traits like authorization requirements or rate limits are not mentioned.
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?
Two sentences, 30 words, with zero wasted content. Each sentence serves a purpose: first defines the action and examples, second adds scope and parameter source.
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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, parameter acquisition, and examples. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the return format or listing fields, but this is acceptable given the straightforward nature.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, providing format examples. The description adds value by telling the agent to obtain the id from sibling tools ('search or list_cips'), which is actionable guidance beyond the schema's scope.
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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'attachments of one Celestia Improvement Proposal (CIP)', with specific examples like 'signed vote records, supporting docs'. It distinguishes from siblings such as get_cip and list_cips by focusing on attachments and specifying governance scope.
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 provides explicit context: 'Celestia governance only' and 'Get the id from search or list_cips', guiding the agent on when to use and how to obtain the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for other purposes.
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.