tip_heightCurrent block height of the chain tip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | mainnet (default) | testnet |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| height | Yes | Current block height of the chain tip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "network": "mainnet"
+ },
+ {
+ "network": "testnet"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "height": {
+ "description": "Current block height of the chain tip",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "height"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds 'current block height' and 'chain tip' context, which is useful but minimal. No behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide are disclosed.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate. Output schema exists to describe return values, and annotations cover behavioral traits. The description explains what it does without needing further context.
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% for the single parameter 'network', with description in schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states it returns the current block height of the chain tip. It is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'block', which might also provide height, but the distinction is implied by the name and context.
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?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving the current tip height, but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'block'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.
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.
The tool set includes multiple near-identical tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and several overlapping entity/profile tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) that make it hard for an agent to choose the right one. The Bitcoin-specific tools are isolated and don't integrate well with the rest, creating two separate domains.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, fee_estimates), some use underscores (polymarket_edges), and others are standalone verbs (remember, recall, forget). No consistent pattern is followed across the tool set.
With 39 tools, the server is overstuffed for its stated purpose ('Blockstream Info'). The Bitcoin blockchain tools are only 7, while the rest are a sprawling external data platform (Pipeworx) with many redundant tools, making the number feel excessive and unfocused.
For a Bitcoin-oriented server, the blockchain tools cover basic operations (address, block, transaction, fee_estimates) but miss essentials like UTXO queries or block details. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx tools dominate and are overcomplete for a server that should be lightweight. The mismatch leaves the Bitcoin part incomplete.