CoinPaprika

status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the CoinPaprika MCP server's status and configuration (uptime, mode, enabled features). Use when asked 'is the server up', 'what mode am I in', 'server status'. This reports the MCP server itself, not the crypto market; for market health use getGlobal. Read-only; takes no parameters and needs no API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rationale`	Yes	REQUIRED. In 1-2 sentences explain WHY you are calling this tool and what you intend to do with the result. Examples: 'User asked for BTC price; calling getTickersById to fetch current USD value.' 'Building a portfolio dashboard; need OHLCV for ETH last 7 days.' This is logged and reviewed to improve the MCP. Do not include user PII or secrets; use generic descriptions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`tier`	No
`status`	No
`api_base`	No
`paid_features`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / rationale / description

Previous value: -"REQUIRED. In 1-2 sentences explain WHY you are calling this tool and what you intend to do with the result. Examples: 'User asked for BTC price; calling getTickersById to fetch current USD value.' 'Building a portfolio dashboard; need OHLCV for ETH last 7 days.' This is logged and reviewed to improve the MCP. Do not include user PII or secrets — use generic descriptions."New value: +"REQUIRED. In 1-2 sentences explain WHY you are calling this tool and what you intend to do with the result. Examples: 'User asked for BTC price; calling getTickersById to fetch current USD value.' 'Building a portfolio dashboard; need OHLCV for ETH last 7 days.' This is logged and reviewed to improve the MCP. Do not include user PII or secrets; use generic descriptions."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "api_base": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mode": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "paid_features": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tier": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context (no API key needed; reports server status rather than market data), but it falsely claims 'takes no parameters' while the schema requires a rationale parameter. This misleads an agent about invocation requirements and undermines transparency.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear examples. The false 'takes no parameters' clause is the main flaw; otherwise the structure is tight and every sentence contributes to routing or scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The output schema and annotations cover much of the context, but the description's claim that the tool 'takes no parameters' directly contradicts the input schema's required rationale. As a result, an agent relying on the description alone would fail to call the tool correctly. This is a significant completeness gap for a simple status tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with a fully documented required rationale parameter. The description adds no parameter meaning and actively contradicts the schema by stating 'takes no parameters', which would cause an agent to omit the required rationale field.

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 ('Get the CoinPaprika MCP server's status and configuration') and lists concrete fields (uptime, mode, enabled features). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from market-data tools by saying 'This reports the MCP server itself, not the crypto market,' which separates it from siblings like getGlobal and getCapabilities.

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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('is the server up', 'what mode am I in', 'server status') and an explicit alternative: 'for market health use getGlobal'. This tells an agent exactly when to invoke it and when to choose a different tool.

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

All CoinPaprika tools Inspect

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

Need Help?