Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aerodrome MCP for Base

Aerodrome MCP for Base

by Alubiama
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Aerodrome protocol status

aerodrome_protocol_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify official Aerodrome contracts, Base block, vote totals, pool count, and current epoch window at one block.

Instructions

Verify official configured Aerodrome contracts, Base block, vote totals, pool count, and the current epoch window at one block.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aerodrome_protocol_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by noting the read happens 'at one block,' implying a consistent point-in-time snapshot, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned data without filler or redundancy. Every clause carries 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what the call yields, and it does so by listing the five data points. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it stops short of explaining return structure or error conditions.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') plus an enumerated resource set (contracts, block, vote totals, pool count, epoch window), so the agent knows exactly what this tool surfaces. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling it differs from, but the protocol-wide scope clearly contrasts with the wallet/voting siblings' narrower focus.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the six sibling tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the content it reports.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools