Skip to main content
Glama

canton-ccpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes

get_proposals

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Canton Network Dev Fund grant proposals: community funding requests tracked on GitHub. Filterable by state (open/closed/all). Use for 'what grants/funding requests exist' questions. NOT the same as Canton Improvement Proposals (CIPs): those are governance specs (use list_cips / get_cip). Returns number, title, state, author, and board status. Canton ecosystem only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many proposals to return. Default 20, max 50. The response states the full count.
stateNoGrant-request state on GitHub. Defaults to "open", so the total reported is open requests rather than every proposal ever filed.open
offsetNoSkip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"How many proposals to return. Default 20, max 50. The response states the full count."
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Skip this many before returning, for paging past the limit. The response states the full count and echoes the offset used.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Added value: +"Grant-request state on GitHub. Defaults to \"open\", so the total reported is open requests rather than every proposal ever filed."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: proposals are tracked on GitHub, returns specific fields (number, title, state, author, board status), and is restricted to the Canton ecosystem. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: definition, use case, disambiguation, return fields, and scope in three sentences. Every clause earns its place, with the most important information front-loaded and no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains what the tool lists, what it returns, its scope, and how it differs from similar governance tools. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of return fields compensates adequately.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (limit, state, offset), including defaults, constraints, and even notes about response counts. The description only restates the state filter and adds no new parameter-level information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Canton Network Dev Fund grant proposals') and clearly defines scope ('community funding requests tracked on GitHub'). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by stating 'NOT the same as Canton Improvement Proposals (CIPs)' and naming alternatives, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for "what grants/funding requests exist" questions.' It also gives clear exclusions and alternatives ('those are governance specs (use list_cips / get_cip)') and notes filterability by state, ensuring the agent knows when and how to apply this tool.

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

All canton-ccpedia 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources