base-intel-mcp
Server Details
Read-only on-chain intel for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status. No API keys.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- datakoot/base-intel-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.5/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Each tool targets a distinct query: address snapshot, gas price, token balance, token metadata, and transaction status. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive (e.g., address_report, gas_now, tx_status). While the pattern isn't strictly verb_noun, it is consistent within the set and intuitive for an intelligence API.
With 5 tools, the server is tightly scoped for on-chain queries on Base. Each tool addresses a common need, and the count is appropriate for a focused information service.
The tool set covers essential queries: address overview, gas, token balance and info, and transaction lookup. Minor gaps like block details or historical transactions are acceptable for a basic intel server.
Available Tools
5 toolsaddress_reportAInspect
One-call snapshot of a Base address: ETH balance, USDC balance, tx count, and whether it is a contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x address on Base |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists the return items but omits error handling, rate limits, or performance. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no waste. Every part 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 output schema, but the description lists all major return fields, which is sufficient for a simple snapshot tool. Could mention data freshness or precision.
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 single parameter 'address' has a schema description, and the tool description does not add further semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states it provides a snapshot of a Base address including ETH balance, USDC balance, tx count, and contract status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like token_balance or tx_status by offering an aggregated view.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for a quick overview, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for specific needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gas_nowAInspect
Current Base network gas price (gwei and wei).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description indicates a read-only operation ('current gas price') but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like caching, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence that is perfectly concise, front-loading the key information with no wasted words.
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?
Adequate but minimal. Lacks details on output structure (e.g., object or single value) and error conditions. Could be more complete given no output schema.
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?
With 0 parameters (baseline 4), the description adds context by specifying the network and units, which goes beyond the empty schema. No further parameter details needed.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the current gas price on the Base network in gwei and wei. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like token_balance or tx_status.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The simplicity implies usage, but no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
token_balanceBInspect
ERC-20 token balance of a holder on Base (formatted + raw).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates that the tool returns both formatted and raw balances, which is a behavioral detail. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or side effects.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should explain the return structure in more detail. It only mentions 'formatted + raw' but does not specify the exact format or fields returned. Additionally, it lacks context about input constraints (e.g., token address format).
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 input schema has no descriptions for the parameters token and address, and the description does not elaborate on them beyond their names. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context (e.g., expected format, chain details).
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?
The description clearly states it retrieves the ERC-20 token balance of a holder on Base, mentioning both formatted and raw results. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool token_info, which might also involve token balances.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as token_info or tx_status. The description provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
token_infoCInspect
ERC-20 token metadata on Base: name, symbol, decimals, total supply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, data freshness, or constraints (e.g., token address format). Minimal transparency beyond stating the return fields.
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence), but omits critical parameter details. Structure is fine but at the expense of completeness.
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?
Given no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not fully compensate for missing structure, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool reliably.
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 sole parameter 'token' is not described in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the agent has no guidance on whether to use an address, symbol, or identifier, significantly hindering correct invocation.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves ERC-20 token metadata on Base, listing specific fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply). Distinguishes from sibling tools like token_balance (balance) and address_report (address info).
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?
Implies usage for retrieving token metadata, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings. No 'when not to use' or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tx_statusAInspect
Look up a Base transaction by hash: status, from, to, value, block, gas used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It lists returned fields but does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid hashes, or any side effects. Sufficient for a simple lookup but could be more explicit.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists the key fields. Every word contributes to understanding, with no unnecessary information.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description lists the returned fields, which is helpful. However, it lacks information on error handling or edge cases. For a simple lookup, it is mostly complete.
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 only parameter is 'hash' and the description mentions 'by hash' but does not elaborate on expected format (e.g., hex prefix, length) or provide any constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it adds minimal value.
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?
The description clearly states the tool looks up a Base transaction by hash and lists the fields returned (status, from, to, value, block, gas used). This distinguishes it from siblings like address_report or token_info, which deal with different resources.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose is implied but not contrasted with siblings. A user might infer usage from the description, but there is no direct when or when-not advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!