Read-only audit of a public CometBFT (Cosmos SDK) RPC endpoint: node status, health, peers, and whether unsafe admin methods (dial_seeds, dial_peers, unsafe_flush_mempool) are publicly exposed. Never calls an unsafe method; exposure is inferred from the node's route listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Base URL of a CometBFT RPC endpoint to audit, e.g. https://rpc.cosmos.network:443. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds crucial context: it never calls unsafe methods and infers exposure from route listing. This is valuable beyond the annotations and reassures the agent about safety.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose (
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 has one parameter with full schema documentation and output schema absence, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what it does and how it operates. It covers the essential behavioral aspects (read-only, never calls unsafe methods) but does not detail the exact output format, which may be a minor gap but not critical given the simplicity.
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?
The schema description for the 'url' parameter already explains what it is (base URL of CometBFT RPC endpoint) and provides an example. The description reinforces this and mentions the purpose, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema coverage is 100%, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the tool performs a read-only audit of a CometBFT RPC endpoint, listing specific aspects (node status, health, peers, unsafe admin method exposure). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a specific technical stack and audit purpose.
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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose and scope, implying it should be used when auditing a CometBFT RPC endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools are mostly unrelated, the usage context is clear enough.
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.
