get_deploymentsThe versioned BlazePhoenix deployment registry: Core, Hub, Solver, Quoter and Router addresses per chain and protocol version (1.0.0 live; 2.0.0 the final generation), and which version each chain runs now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | false: see code, error | |
| active | No | ||
| schema | No | ||
| versions | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| localServer | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "active": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "localServer": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "false: see code, error",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "schema": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "updatedAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "versions": {
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain-level context the annotations cannot (1.0.0 is live, 2.0.0 is the final generation, per-chain version resolution), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about response shape, caching or freshness beyond the version labels.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, its contents and the versioning semantics without filler. The parenthetical about versions is dense but earns its place; only minor readability cost from the run-on structure.
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 no parameters and an output schema that documents return values, the description's job is small and it largely does it: it explains what the registry contains and how versions map to chains. The only missing piece is any indication of when an agent should reach for this tool rather than the quoting/ABI siblings.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or omit.
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 (the BlazePhoenix deployment registry) and enumerates its contents (Core, Hub, Solver, Quoter, Router addresses per chain and protocol version), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from siblings decode_quote/get_abi/prepare_quote, though those are functionally distant, so the cost is small.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs contract addresses for a chain/version, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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.