Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BitBasic

by com.bitbasic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Find validators

find-validators
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validators and staking providers whose name, address or operator matches a query, on every network or one: exact addresses first, then by stake. Use it to find an operator's validators (such as "Chorus One") or which network an address is on.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find-validators"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoValidators to return, 1 to 25. Default: 10.
queryYesA name, an operator, or an address (whole or from its start, 6 characters or more).
networkNoOnly this network (a slug from list-networks). Default: every network.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the result ordering ('exact addresses first, then by stake'), which is useful behavioral detail. It says nothing about the shape of returned validator records or how staking providers differ from validators in results.

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?

Two sentences: one telling what is returned and in what order, one telling when to use it. Front-loaded and largely waste-free, though 'on every network or one' is slightly awkward phrasing for the default behavior already in the schema.

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?

With three fully documented parameters and a complete annotation set, the only notable gap is what a returned validator record contains, which matters slightly because there is no output schema. The ordering and scoping details cover most of what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters and their defaults are already documented, including the partial-address matching rule. The description restates the fields it accepts and the network scoping but adds no format or edge-case detail (e.g. behavior when the query matches multiple operators).

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific lookup over 'validators and staking providers' matched by 'name, address or operator', with a scoping clause for one vs. all networks. That is clearly distinct from list-validators or compare-validators, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance with two worked scenarios: finding an operator's validators (e.g. "Chorus One") and determining which network an address belongs to. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All BitBasic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources