Get the status-transition timeline of a single Canton Improvement Proposal (CIP): each dated from->to change (e.g. Draft->Review->Final). Use for 'how/when did CIP-X move through governance' questions. Returns history only, not the proposal body (get_cip) or vote tallies (get_cip_votes). Canton ecosystem only. Not Cardano or other 'CIP' schemes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | CIP ID: "0001", "CIP-0042", or "PR-0117" |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds context that only history is returned, no proposal body or votes. No behavioral contradictions or omissions beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Three sentences: first defines purpose and output format, second provides use case, third clarifies domain scope. No fluff, front-loaded with the most critical information.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned, what is excluded, and when to use it. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. No further information needed for correct tool selection.
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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'id'. Description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to high coverage.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves status-transition timeline of a single CIP, specifying the exact output (dated from->to changes). Explicitly differentiates from sibling tools get_cip and get_cip_votes by naming them and stating what is excluded.
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?
Provides explicit use case: 'how/when did CIP-X move through governance' questions. Also gives clear when-not-to-use by stating it does not return proposal body or vote tallies, and restricts scope to Canton ecosystem, excluding other 'CIP' schemes.
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.
Many tools have overlapping search/retrieval functionality (search, semantic_search, full_context, search_community, search_github_issues, etc.), and the CIP-specific variants (get_cip, get_cip_history, get_cip_votes, get_cip_mentions, get_cip_citations) are numerous and subtly differentiated. Despite cross-references in the descriptions, the boundaries are fine-grained and an agent is likely to misselect among the 8+ search tools or the 8+ CIP tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_x, list_x, search_x, find_x). Mixed styles or camelCase are absent, and the verb choice (get, list, search, find, detect, compare) is semantically appropriate to each action, making the naming highly predictable.
With 88 tools, the surface is extremely overgrown for a single server, far exceeding the 25+ 'too many' threshold and approaching the 50+ 'extreme mismatch' category. Even for a comprehensive ecosystem knowledge base, this creates a massive selection burden and makes the tool set unwieldy for agents.
The server covers the full Canton ecosystem: docs, forum, mailing lists, GitHub, CIPs, governance, validators, versions, deprecations, security, and media. There are no glaring gaps in the knowledge domain; every major resource type has retrieval and analysis tools, making the coverage exhaustive with no obvious dead ends.