novai-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or query pattern (entity, balance, block, chain status, memory objects, oracle anchors, signals, transaction). Even similar tools like the various oracle anchor and signal queries are differentiated by filter parameters (by entity, by tag, by height, by issuer, by type).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a strict 'novai_get_<resource>' pattern in snake_case. The verb 'get' is used uniformly, and the resource names are descriptive and consistent.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools covering block, transaction, account, entity, memory objects, oracle anchors, and multiple signal query dimensions, the count is well-scoped for a read-only blockchain explorer. No tool feels redundant or missing.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major query needs: chain status, blocks, transactions, balances, entities, memory objects, oracles, and signals. Minor gaps include lack of listing recent transactions or searching entities by name, but these are not essential for core functionality.
Average 3.9/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states it returns a list with specific fields, which is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential large result sets, pagination, ordering, or any limitations. The description is adequate but not transparent about these aspects.
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?
The description is two sentences, directly stating the action and the return fields. It is front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return fields but omits details like pagination, result limits, or ordering. It is complete enough for basic use but lacks context for more advanced or corner-case queries.
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?
All parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes the entity and block height range but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema definitions. It does list return fields, which helps context but not directly parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool lists oracle anchors by entity within a block height range, optionally filtered by timestamp. It specifies the resource and filtering criteria. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like novai_get_oracle_anchor or novai_get_oracle_anchors_by_tag, so it misses some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing anchors for a given entity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks when-not-to-use advice and does not reference sibling tools for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate that the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description only states what it does, not its behavior beyond that.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, with no unnecessary words.
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?
The description explains the return values, which is important given no output schema. However, it does not mention pagination, limits on results, or any ordering, which could be useful for an agent.
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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The tool description adds context about output fields but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool lists signal commitments by issuer within a block height range and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like novai_get_signals_by_height and novai_get_signals_by_type by focusing on the issuer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description does not mention exclusions or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the balance format (decimal string) but does not state that the operation is read-only or mention any potential side effects, though 'fetch' implies read.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description mentions return format for balance but not the nonce format or overall response structure. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, so the parameter is already well-described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's own description.
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 clearly states the tool fetches balance and nonce for an account/entity address, with a specific note on precision. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_block or get_transaction.
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 description (checking balance/nonce), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the fields returned (object id, object type, owner, heights, hex data) and defines the object type codes. This is thorough for a read-only list tool, though it does not mention authorization or side effects.
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 mostly concise, leading with the main purpose in one sentence. The list of object type codes, while useful, adds verbosity. Overall well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the response fields and providing a code mapping. The parameter is fully described in the schema. This is nearly complete for an agent to understand usage and output.
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 the schema providing the description 'Owner entity id, 64 hex characters.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond restating 'owned by an entity.' Baseline of 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 clearly states the action (List), the resource (on-chain memory objects), and the context (owned by an entity). It also lists the specific fields returned and provides a code mapping, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on signals, balances, or blocks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists return fields (issuer, data hash, timestamps, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a query tool, the absence of destructive behavior is implied but not explicit.
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 with clear, front-loaded purpose followed by return fields. No redundant words, efficient structure.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields. However, it omits potential context like pagination, max results, ordering, or typical use cases for the timestamp filter. Still, it covers the core functionality sufficiently.
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?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds overall filtering logic but does not enhance per-parameter meaning beyond the schema defaults. 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 clearly states the tool lists oracle anchors filtered by data tag and block height range, with optional timestamp filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like novai_get_oracle_anchor (singular) and novai_get_oracle_anchors_by_entity (by entity).
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?
The description implies usage for querying by tag and block range, but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like novai_get_oracle_anchors_by_entity or novai_get_oracle_anchor. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. It only describes output content, missing behavioral traits that an agent needs to safely invoke the tool.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence provides useful information. No wasted words.
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 simple tool with one parameter, the description adequately states the output fields. However, without an output schema, it could have included more detail on return structure or limits. It is mostly complete but misses no critical gaps.
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%, and the schema already describes 'height' as 'Block height to query.' The description repeats this without adding new format or usage details, so it adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'signal commitments recorded at a specific block height', and explains the fields returned. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like novai_get_signals_by_issuer and novai_get_signals_by_type by focusing on block height filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states 'Use this to see which signals were committed in a given block', providing clear usage context. It implicitly steers toward siblings for other filters, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the endpoint retains a bounded recent window for height lookups and that hash lookups work for any indexed node. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or authentication needs, but the 'get' action implies no side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive beyond the given limitations.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. The most critical information (parameter rule, return contents, and caveats) is front-loaded and efficiently presented. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates return fields (height, hash, parent hash, round, state root, transaction count) and explains the null case. It covers both parameter modes and their limitations, leaving no ambiguity for a single block fetch tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the description's contribution is limited. The description repeats the mutual exclusivity and adds the behavioral context about lookup limitations, providing some value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameter meanings.
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 name and title clearly indicate a block fetch by height or hash. The description specifies a verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single committed block'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' by resource type. However, no explicit sibling differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states 'Provide exactly one of height or hash' and explains the limitation that very old heights return null, guiding when to use which parameter. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear for the intended use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns null if no entity exists, which is good. It could mention that it is a read-only operation, but the fetch action implies non-destructive behavior.
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?
Single sentence conveying essential information with no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but is clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema), description is complete: explains return fields, null case, and doesn't require additional 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 already describes entity_id as 'Entity id, 64 hex characters' with pattern. Tool description adds context that it is an on-chain AI entity id, but this is minimal addition over schema. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states 'Fetch an on-chain AI entity (agent) by its entity id.' and lists specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like novai_get_balance or novai_get_block.
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?
Description implies usage for fetching an entity by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it exclude cases where a different tool would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly and mentions null return for missing transactions, but lacks details on permissions or rate limits.
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?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action, with no unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simple single-parameter tool and no output schema, the description explains the return fields and null case, making it complete for selection and invocation.
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 a well-described parameter. The description adds slight context by stating it's a transaction id, but mostly repeats schema info.
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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a confirmed transaction by its transaction id', distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch other entities like blocks or balances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies when to use this tool (when you have a transaction id) and indicates what is returned, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses null return behavior ('or null if no anchor exists') and lists returned fields. It does not mention side effects or idempotency, but as a read operation, this is sufficient.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and null case. It could detail return structure more, but is generally complete given complexity.
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 signal_hash fully described (pattern, 64 hex characters). The description merely restates this without adding new semantics beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool fetches a single oracle anchor by signal hash, specifying the exact resource and identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like novai_get_oracle_anchors_by_entity and novai_get_oracle_anchors_by_tag, which retrieve multiple anchors by different criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific signal hash, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like batch fetch siblings, which would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the accepted codes (0-6) and the returned fields (commitment hash, signal type, height, issuer), providing good behavioral context. However, it omits details on pagination, ordering, or rate limits.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds necessary information without superfluous words. It is optimally concise.
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?
With three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior: it explains the accepted codes and return fields. Minor additions like result limits or ordering would improve completeness, but current content is adequate.
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?
Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping integer codes to human-readable names (e.g., 0 Anomaly) and stating that the height range is inclusive, which goes beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool lists signal commitments of a given type within a block height range, and it enumerates the accepted signal type codes (0-6), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like novai_get_signals_by_height or novai_get_signals_by_issuer.
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?
The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for filtering by signal type, it lacks explicit statements like 'Use this for a specific signal type and height range; otherwise, consider novai_get_signals_by_height.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses that this is a read-only operation that returns chain status. It lists all the returned fields, and does not mention any destructive side effects. The behavior is completely transparent.
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?
The description is three sentences, each earning its place: first states what it returns, second gives usage guidance, third confirms no parameters. No redundant or unclear phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no input, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs: the exact output fields, the purpose (verify liveness, get tip height), and the fact it takes no parameters. This is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description clearly states 'Takes no parameters.' With 100% schema coverage (trivially), the description adds no extra param info but confirms the emptiness. For 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description's clarity earns a 5.
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 explicitly states the tool returns the latest committed block of the NOVAI chain, listing the fields returned (height, hash, etc.) and the verb 'Return'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like novai_get_block which retrieves a specific block.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to verify the chain is live and advancing, and to learn the current tip height before requesting a specific block.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and implies when not to (for specific blocks).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![novai-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0x-devc/novai-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0x-devc/novai-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![novai-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0x-devc/novai-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0x-devc/novai-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0x-devc/novai-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server