Most recent orphan blocks with their canonical counterpart at the same height, newest first. limit 1..50; window in 24h,48h,7d,30d,90d,180d,1y,all (default all, so the last N orphans are returned however old they are).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of orphans to return, 1 to 50. Example: 20 | |
| window | No | Time window, one of 24h, 48h, 7d, 30d, 90d, 180d, 1y, all. Example: 7d | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of orphans to return, 1 to 50. Example: 20"Input schema / properties / window / descriptionAdded value: +"Time window, one of 24h, 48h, 7d, 30d, 90d, 180d, 1y, all. Example: 7d"Input schema / properties / windowAdded value: +{
+ "default": "all",
+ "title": "Window",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the fact that each row is paired with its canonical block at the same height, and the important interaction between window and limit. It does not mention result caps or payload shape, but the added behavioral context is solid.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and in what order, then the parameter constraints. No filler and no repetition of the schema's example values.
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?
With only two optional parameters, existing annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, ordering, and both parameter semantics. Only a hint at the shape of the canonical-counterpart fields would make it fully self-sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: the limit range 1..50 and, crucially, that 'all' means the last N orphans regardless of age rather than an unbounded set. That interpretation of the default is not obvious from the schema alone.
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 names a specific resource (orphan blocks), a specific pairing (each with its canonical counterpart at the same height) and an ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinct from get_block or search_block, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like reorgs or reorg_stats.
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?
It explains the default window semantics ('all', so the last N orphans are returned however old they are), which is genuinely useful context for choosing arguments. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over reorgs, chain_fork_window or get_block, so the when-to-use decision against siblings is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.