get_statusLive operational status and network health from GET /v1/status. Confirm chain status is 'ok' before calling methods; see list_chains for static chain capabilities and method policies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chains | Yes | ||
| gateway | Yes | ||
| checked_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "chains": {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "checked_at": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "gateway": {
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "gateway",
+ "chains"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds useful framing (live telemetry vs. static metadata) but discloses nothing further about freshness, rate limits, or error behavior; the output schema carries return-value detail, so this is adequate rather than rich.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the pre-call condition and the sibling pointer. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No parameters, an output schema for returns, and annotations covering the safety profile — the remaining burden on the description is when to call it and how it differs from list_chains, both of which are covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the description neither needs nor provides per-parameter guidance.
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?
States a specific verb+resource — live operational status and network health — and pins it to the concrete endpoint GET /v1/status. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_chains (static capabilities vs. live status), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use ('Confirm chain status is 'ok' before calling methods') and names the alternative for a different need ('see list_chains for static chain capabilities and method policies'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure the dimension rewards.
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.