Skip to main content
Glama

DERO MCP Server

by io.github.DHEBP

dero_get_block

Read-only

Fetch a full block (header + miner_tx + transactions + topo position) by height OR hash via DERO.GetBlock.

When to call: when investigating a specific block or verifying a transaction's inclusion. Call dero_get_height first if you do not have a target height. PREFER citing dero_docs_search("block structure") so the user can verify field semantics.

Input Requirements (CRITICAL):

  • You MUST provide exactly ONE of hash or height. Providing both or neither returns a structured INVALID_INPUT error.

  • hash MUST be exactly 64 hex characters.

  • height MUST be a non-negative integer.

Output: full block with block_header, miner_tx, txs, and topo position fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashNo64-char hex block hash
heightNoBlock height

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states the operation is a fetch, details the error condition (providing both or neither hash/height returns INVALID_INPUT), and outlines the returned data structure, making behavior fully transparent.

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 well-organized but slightly repetitive; parameter constraints are restated from the schema. Still, it remains focused and avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

Covers output fields, prerequisite actions, and error handling. It does not detail the exact format of the response, but referencing dero_docs_search for field semantics compensates. Adequate for an RPC method.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Both parameters (hash, height) are described with constraints (64 hex chars, non-negative integer) in the schema, and the description reinforces the mutual exclusivity requirement. No ambiguity remains.

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 action (fetch a full block) and differentiates from sibling tools like dero_get_block_header_by_hash by explicitly listing the contained fields (header, miner_tx, transactions, topo position).

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?

Provides specific when-to-call guidance (investigating a specific block, verifying transaction inclusion) and a prerequisite (call dero_get_height first if height unknown). Lacks explicit exclusions but gives sufficient context.

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

All DERO MCP Server toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to call it and how it differs from similar tools. Composite tools are well-defined, overlapping concerns are minimized.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a general pattern: 'dero_' for core daemon RPC wrappers, 'tela_' for TELA-specific composites, and descriptive names for other composites. While mostly consistent, there are exceptions like 'audit_chain_artifact_claim' and 'dero_durl_to_scid' breaking the pattern slightly.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server is comprehensive but slightly heavy. However, each tool serves a specific need in the DERO ecosystem, covering chain queries, docs, TELA, and composite analyses. The count is justifiable given the domain breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core chain operations, documentation, TELA app lifecycle, and common analytical tasks. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of wallet interaction tools or transaction submission, but these are outside the apparent read-only/analysis scope.

Resources