Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Osmosis MCP Server

Osmosis MCP Server

by MyronKoch-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get-cl-pools

Retrieve all concentrated liquidity pools from the Osmosis blockchain to analyze available trading opportunities and liquidity positions.

Instructions

Returns all Concentrated Liquidity pools

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": "get-cl-pools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoOptional: maximum number of CL pools to return (default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Returns') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., if it's paginated or a complete dump). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns complex data (pools), this leaves significant gaps 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%, so the schema fully documents the single optional parameter 'limit'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with high coverage, the baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('all Concentrated Liquidity pools'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-all-pools' or 'get-cl-positions', which could cause confusion about scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-all-pools' or 'get-cl-positions-by-pool'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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