Avalanche AVAX MCP

build_plan

Generate a step-by-step, copy-pasteable runbook for an Avalanche operation — Builder Console (no-code) path plus the equivalent platform-cli / SDK / interchain-kit commands. Read-only: never signs. operation: create-l1 (launch an L1); use ictt or interchain-kit for any CROSS-CHAIN / interoperability work — bridging tokens, sending cross-chain (ICM / Teleporter / Warp) messages, or connecting your L1 to C-Chain or other L1s (interchain-kit also lets you iterate locally first); validator-manager; staking; transfer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	transfer: destination address (transferKind=send)
`vm`	No	create-l1: VM type (default: subnet-evm)
`name`	No	create-l1: L1 name (default: myL1)
`type`	No	validator-manager: manager type (alias of validatorManager)
`stake`	No	staking: stake amount
`token`	No	ictt: token contract address (or "native")
`amount`	No	transfer: amount
`nodeId`	No	staking: NodeID-…
`chainId`	No	create-l1: EVM chain ID
`example`	No	interchain-kit: which example to run
`network`	No	Target network (default: fuji)
`duration`	No	staking: staking period (e.g. 336h)
`homeChain`	No	ictt: home chain (where the token originates)
`operation`	Yes	Which runbook to generate
`tokenType`	No	ictt: token type (default: erc20)
`remoteChain`	No	ictt: destination chain (required for operation=ictt)
`tokenSymbol`	No	create-l1: native token symbol
`transferKind`	No	transfer: kind (default: send)
`validatorManager`	No	create-l1 / validator-manager: model (default: poa)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It declares 'Read-only: never signs' clearly, but does not elaborate on potential side effects or dependencies. The behavioral trait is well-captured, but lacks depth.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a dense single paragraph containing all instructions. While every sentence adds value, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability for agents.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, 6 operations, no output schema), the description covers usage context, parameter grouping, and important caveats. However, it does not describe the return format or contents of the runbook.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters per operation and clarifying usage (e.g., 'transfer: destination address'). It enriches context beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool generates step-by-step runbooks for specific Avalanche operations, distinguishing itself by listing the covered operations and explicitly directing cross-chain work to sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use each operation, provides alternatives like ictt or interchain-kit for cross-chain tasks, and notes the tool is read-only (never signs).

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

All Avalanche AVAX MCP tools Inspect

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

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.

Completeness4/5

The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.

build_plan

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources