Skip to main content
Glama

DERO MCP Server

by io.github.DHEBP

diagnose_chain_health

Read-only

Composite: run a four-step chain (DERO.Ping → DERO.GetInfo → DERO.GetHeight → DERO.GetTxPool) and return a single narrative health report with chain metadata, mempool snapshot, machine-readable signals, and curated docs citations.

When to call: as the first step in any chain-state investigation when the user asks "is the node healthy", "is it synced", or "what is the current state of the chain". PREFER this over chaining the four primitives yourself — the composite handles partial-failure modes and lag-depth classification consistently, and the response already cites the right docs page.

Input Requirements:

  • include_tx_pool is OPTIONAL (default true). Set false to skip the mempool snapshot when you only need chain-tip status.

Output: { status, narrative, signals[], chain, mempool, related_docs, _diagnostics }. status is one of healthy | lagging | partial | unreachable. chain is null when DERO.GetInfo was unreachable; mempool is null when skipped or the call failed. On total daemon unreachability the tool returns a structured _meta.error with code RPC_UNREACHABLE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_tx_poolNoInclude mempool snapshot in narrative and response. Default true.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses partial-failure handling, the status enum, null conditions for chain and mempool, and the RPC_UNREACHABLE error code. It adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (summary, when to call, input requirements, output) and every sentence provides necessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, front-loading the core purpose and usage.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a composite tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly details the output structure, status values, null conditions, and error handling. It also covers usage context and failure modes, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The single parameter include_tx_pool has 100% schema coverage, and the description adds usage context (set false when only chain-tip status is needed) and default behavior, going beyond the schema's minimal description. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 it is a composite tool that runs a four-step chain (DERO.Ping → DERO.GetInfo → DERO.GetHeight → DERO.GetTxPool) and returns a health report, distinguishing itself from the primitive sibling tools. It uses specific nouns and verbs, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to call (as first step in chain-state investigations for health/sync/state questions) and provides a clear preference over chaining primitives, with reasons (handles partial-failure modes, consistent lag classification, cites docs). This gives strong guidance on usage and alternatives.

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