Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MIKO MCP Server

MIKO MCP Server

by Miko-Protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

MIKO Token Narrative

miko.narrative
Read-only

Get a one-paragraph narrative interpretation of a token's current on-chain activity, with concrete observations to understand what the token is doing right now.

Instructions

Get MIKO's narrative read of a token address: what the token is doing on-chain right now, as a one-paragraph interpretation plus concrete observations. Use token_address; mint_address remains a deprecated compatibility alias.

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": "miko.narrative"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mint_addressNoDeprecated alias for token_address
token_addressNoToken address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that output is a narrative plus observations, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, rate limits, or side effects) beyond what annotations cover.

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 no wasted words. Purpose and parameter guidance front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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, description adequately explains return format. Lacks error handling or edge-case info, but for a read-only tool with good annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by marking mint_address as a deprecated alias and recommending token_address, which goes beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets a narrative read of a token address with output format (one-paragraph interpretation plus observations). Distinguishes from siblings by its unique function, but does not explicitly contrast with miko.insights or miko.persona, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear guidance to use token_address over deprecated mint_address. However, lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like miko.insights, and no when-not-to-use context.

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