Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OrbitWan.io

by io.orbitwan
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Wanchain validator or Storeman node

get_validator
Read-only

A Wanchain PoS validator or Storeman node. Views by node type: PoS profile, rewards, flows; Storeman profile, flows, members. Default profile. flows pages with limit (1 to 25) and cursor (next_cursor) and includes stake returns (label Stake returned, no transaction). Every answer carries found, type and name; an exited PoS validator is found with status exit and its live state (stake 0), its history in flows; an address in none of these is found false.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoprofile
limitNo
cursorNo
addressYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 25,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / view / default
      Previous value: -"rewards"New value: +"profile"
    • changedInput schema / properties / view / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "rewards",
-  "flows"
-]New value: +[
+  "profile",
+  "rewards",
+  "flows",
+  "members"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the available views, the default profile view, pagination limits for flows, the special 'Stake returned' label, the presence of found/type/name in every answer, and the exited-validator behavior. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup it is substantially informative.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact and front-loads the core resource and view model, but it is a single dense paragraph with run-on phrasing such as 'flows pages with limit ... and includes stake returns'. It is not bloated, but its structure could be easier to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only lookup with no output schema and four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description covers enough: it explains the view model, pagination, and key return indicators (found, type, name, exited status). It still leaves some gaps around the address parameter's expected form and whether exactly one node is returned, but overall it is usable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it explains the view enum values and their node-type mappings, states the default profile view, gives a limit range and cursor meaning for flows, and implies the address parameter through the not-found behavior. The address parameter itself is not explicitly described as required or as a node address, and the stated limit range (1 to 25) differs from the schema's broad minimum/maximum, leaving a small semantic gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as a Wanchain PoS validator or Storeman node and implies a lookup by address, which is clear enough when paired with the tool name get_validator. It does not explicitly state a verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_validators.

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?

Usage is implied by the node-type and view descriptions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_validators or the get_address_* siblings. The description also does not state prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OrbitWan.io toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources