Look up a typed record
web3_lookupRead-only
Typed records by id: address, ABI, EIP. Does not search prose or rank.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| chain | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| version | No |
web3ctx
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint is already true, so the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds a behavioral boundary: this is an exact typed-id lookup, not a search or ranking operation. It does not mention missing-ID behavior or result format, but that is a minor gap given the read-only annotation.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the main operation, the supported record types, and a key exclusion with no filler. The core information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the core lookup semantics and one key behavioral boundary for a read-only tool. It is less complete on optional parameter semantics and return behavior, and since there is no output schema, those details are left to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for the two required parameters: 'by id' explains the id field, and 'address, ABI, EIP' maps directly to the kind enum. With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable, but chain, project, and version remain entirely unexplained.
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 names a precise operation (lookup by id) and a concrete resource set ('typed records: address, ABI, EIP'). The disclaimer 'Does not search prose or rank' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/grep tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'by id' phrasing implies this tool is for exact-record lookups when an identifier is known, and the 'Does not search prose or rank' sentence gives a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a direct 'use this when...' condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct retrieval need: deps for dependency closure, fetch for bodies, grep for exact matches, lookup for typed records, and search for ranked selector discovery. The descriptions even call out what each tool does not do, eliminating ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the web3_ prefix with lowercase action-oriented names like fetch, grep, lookup, and search. The only slight inconsistency is web3_deps, which uses a noun rather than a verb, but the overall pattern remains clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused web3 code context server. Each tool covers a distinct mode of retrieval without unnecessary overlap or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The set covers ranked search, exact lookup, body retrieval, dependency closure, and typed record access, forming a coherent read-only context toolkit. Minor gaps exist, such as not following calls across projects and no semantic ranking in grep or lookup, but these are explicitly stated and workable around.