Skip to main content
Glama

Sato Hub: Onchain Agents

by ai.satohub

Get install steps that were actually run

onchain_agent_get_deploy_spec
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE WHEN you are about to write setup instructions or install something for a user and want steps that were verified rather than copied from a README. Returns the structured deploy manifest for one resource by slug — everything needed to install and instantiate it: runtime, install command(s), entry snippet, required keys/env/wallet/RPC, chains, license, whether it is itself an MCP server, and a deploy_status.

deploy_status is a trust signal, NOT a safety guarantee: "verified" = the install path was reproduced/confirmed from the project's docs; "self_reported" = parsed from the project's README and not independently reproduced. Always verify keys, permissions, and funds before running anything.

Returns (json): { slug, name, github_url, docs_url, deploy_spec: { runtime, install[], entry, requires[], chains[], license, mcp_native, mcp_invocation?, deploy_clarity, deploy_status, source_url, as_of }, note }. Returns an error if the resource has no manifest yet (they are being rolled out resource by resource). Read-only.

Example: { slug: "solana-agent-kit" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesThe resource slug to get a deploy manifest for, e.g. 'solana-agent-kit'.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable).markdown

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: explains deploy_status as a trust signal rather than a safety guarantee, notes that missing manifests return an error, and includes a safety warning about verifying keys and permissions. Also explicitly states 'Read-only.'

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the use trigger and organized into clear sections: use case, return shape, trust semantics, error behavior, and example. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds useful context without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a detailed return shape, explains deploy_status semantics, warns about safety, and documents error conditions. This is enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to interpret results.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both params, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds an example for slug but does not meaningfully elaborate on response_format or go beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource: returns the structured deploy manifest for one resource by slug, including install commands and runtime. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on verified install/deploy information rather than general resource info, metrics, news, or wiki pages.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Starts with 'USE WHEN you are about to write setup instructions or install something' which gives a clear trigger and context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is strongly implied and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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

All Sato Hub: Onchain Agents 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource type or action: agents, resources, wiki pages, news, metrics, changes, and stack recommendations. The only mild overlap is between get_changes and recent_changes, but their descriptions clearly separate directory sync from an auditable event feed.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the onchain_agent_ prefix and mostly follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_, list_, search_, recommend_. The one notable deviation is onchain_agent_recent_changes, which lacks the get_ prefix used by its sibling change-tracking tool.

Tool Count5/5

Fourteen tools is well within the ideal range for a directory-style server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose—search, detail retrieval, list facets, news, metrics, change sync, and recommendations—and none feels redundant or filler.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the domain thoroughly: discovery of agents and resources, detailed lookups, facets, wiki reference, news, metrics, deploy specs, change tracking, and stack recommendations. Since this is a read-only information server, the lack of write operations is not a gap.

Resources