Skip to main content
Glama

blobpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes

list_cips

Browse or filter Celestia Improvement Proposals (CIPs) by status (Draft, Review, Final) or type. Celestia governance proposals only — do NOT use this to list GitHub issues, pull requests, or proposals from other chains (use the GitHub MCP or that chains tool for those). Use get_cip to read one in full, get_cip_history for its status timeline, and get_cip_mentions for where it is discussed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoType filter, e.g. "Standards Track"
limitNo
statusNoall

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "Approved",
-  "Final",
-  "Active",
-  "Living",
-  "In Review",
-  "Review",
-  "Proposed",
-  "Last Call",
-  "Draft",
-  "Stagnant",
-  "Withdrawn",
-  "Rejected",
-  "Replaced",
-  "Obsolete",
-  "Superseded",
-  "all"
-]New value: +[
+  "Approved",
+  "Final",
+  "Active",
+  "Living",
+  "In Review",
+  "Review",
+  "Proposed",
+  "Last Call",
+  "Draft",
+  "Stagnant",
+  "Withdrawn",
+  "Rejected",
+  "Replaced",
+  "Obsolete",
+  "Superseded",
+  "Implemented",
+  "all"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "Draft",
-  "Review",
-  "Final",
-  "Withdrawn",
-  "Rejected",
-  "Superseded",
-  "all"
-]New value: +[
+  "Approved",
+  "Final",
+  "Active",
+  "Living",
+  "In Review",
+  "Review",
+  "Proposed",
+  "Last Call",
+  "Draft",
+  "Stagnant",
+  "Withdrawn",
+  "Rejected",
+  "Replaced",
+  "Obsolete",
+  "Superseded",
+  "all"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Browse or filter' clearly implies a read-only listing operation, and the statement 'Use get_cip to read one in full' signals that list results are likely summaries, not full CIP content. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or rate limits, but those are not critical for a simple list/filter tool and no contradictory annotations exist.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool does, the second provides critical exclusions and fallback tools, and the third routes to sibling tools for related operations. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering dimensions, exclusions, and sibling routing well. It does not describe the exact result shape or default pagination behavior, but the schema provides limit/default details and the 'read one in full' hint helps set expectations about list output. Slightly more detail on the default status/all behavior would make it fully complete.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the two main filter dimensions, 'status' and 'type', and gives examples like Draft/Review/Final for status. However, it omits the `limit` parameter entirely and the status examples are far from exhaustive relative to the 17-value enum, so it does not fully compensate for the sparse schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Browse or filter') and resource ('Celestia Improvement Proposals (CIPs)'), and immediately differentiates itself from related tools by scoping to Celestia governance proposals and explicitly excluding GitHub issues, PRs, and other-chain proposals. This makes the tool's role unambiguous even before seeing sibling names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('do NOT use this to list GitHub issues, pull requests, or proposals from other chains') and names the alternative category (GitHub MCP or that chain's tool). It also routes to the relevant siblings for related needs: get_cip for full reads, get_cip_history for status timelines, and get_cip_mentions for discussions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All blobpedia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources