Skip to main content
Glama

Boar blockchain MCP (basic)

by network.boar.mcp

eth_get_logs

Read-only

Get event logs matching a filter on Ethereum mainnet. Requires at least fromBlock and toBlock. Optionally filter by contract address and topics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicsNoArray of topic filters. Each element is a topic hash, null for wildcard, or an array of topic hashes for OR matching.
addressNoContract address to filter logs
toBlockYesBlock number as hex (e.g. "0x1") or tag ("latest", "earliest", "pending")
fromBlockYesBlock number as hex (e.g. "0x1") or tag ("latest", "earliest", "pending")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the requirement of fromBlock/toBlock and optional filters, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format or potential response size. OpenWorldHint is present but not elaborated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler words. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 log query with comprehensive schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description covers the essential usage. The absence of output schema documentation is a minor gap given the tool's conventional Ethereum behavior and sibling context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description merely restates required vs optional parameters without adding deeper meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'get' with the resource 'event logs' and explicitly states 'Ethereum mainnet', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mezo_get_logs. It also mentions filtering capabilities.

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?

It states the required parameters ('Requires at least fromBlock and toBlock') and optional filters (address/topics), giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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

All Boar blockchain MCP (basic) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool is clearly distinguished by a network prefix (btc, btc_testnet, eth, mezo, mezo_testnet) and a unique operation (get_balance, get_block, get_transaction, etc.). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like get_balance and get_token_balance are explicitly separated for different asset types.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent pattern of network prefix followed by a verb_noun operation (e.g., btc_get_balance, mezo_get_token_info). Minor deviations like eth_gas_price instead of eth_get_gas_price and eth_estimate_gas do not disrupt the overall predictable structure.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools, the server feels heavy and overwhelming. While each tool covers a specific network and operation, the count far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, even considering the multi-chain nature of the server.

Completeness3/5

The server provides a solid read-only surface for Bitcoin and EVM chains (balance, blocks, transactions, logs, token info, fees). However, it lacks any transaction creation or broadcasting capabilities, and there is no eth_call for arbitrary contract calls, leaving notable gaps for common blockchain workflows.

Resources