Skip to main content
Glama
AdamikHQ

Adamik MCP Server

Official

getSupportedChains

Retrieve available blockchain network IDs for multi-chain operations in the Adamik MCP Server.

Instructions

Get a list of supported chain IDs

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Implements the getSupportedChains tool handler inline within the server.tool registration. Returns comma-separated list of supported chain IDs from the imported 'chains' array.
    server.tool("getSupportedChains", "Get a list of supported chain IDs", {}, async () => {
      const text = chains.join(",");
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text,
          },
        ],
      };
    });
  • src/module.ts:223-233 (registration)
    Registers the getSupportedChains tool with name, description, input schema (empty), and inline handler function.
    server.tool("getSupportedChains", "Get a list of supported chain IDs", {}, async () => {
      const text = chains.join(",");
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text,
          },
        ],
      };
    });
  • Defines the Zod schema for the GetSupportedChainsResponse type, specifying a record of chain details.
    export const GetSupportedChainsResponseSchema = z.object({
      chains: z.record(z.string(), ChainDetailSchema),
    });
    export type GetSupportedChainsResponse = z.infer<typeof GetSupportedChainsResponseSchema>;
  • Exports the array of supported chain IDs used by the getSupportedChains handler.
      "ethereum",
      "cosmoshub",
      "axelar",
      "dydx",
      "osmosis",
      "bitcoin",
      "babylon",
      "starknet",
      "aptos",
      "solana",
      "sepolia",
      "holesky",
      "optimism",
      "optimism-sepolia",
      "bsc",
      "base",
      "ton",
      "tron",
    ];
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] a list' but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., array of integers, objects with metadata), pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence: 'Get a list of supported chain IDs.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral traits. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return type, but it doesn't. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps in context.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is justified since it avoids redundancy while the schema fully handles the parameter aspect.

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's purpose: 'Get a list of supported chain IDs' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('supported chain IDs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getChainValidators or getTokenDetails by focusing on chain IDs rather than validators or token details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before other tools like getAccountHistory or broadcastTransaction to verify chain support. With no usage hints, it falls to the minimal guidance level.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/AdamikHQ/adamik-mcp-server'

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