Nodeflare-mcp

get_logs

Retrieve contract event logs from 23 EVM chains using eth_getLogs. Requires API key or x402 payment (~$0.001 per call).

Instructions

Fetch contract event logs (eth_getLogs). Heavy method: needs NODEFLARE_API_KEY or an x402 wallet (X402_PRIVATE_KEY) — costs ~$0.001 via x402.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "fromBlock": "<fromBlock>",
      "toBlock": "<toBlock>"
    },
    "name": "get_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	Chain slug, e.g. 'eth', 'base', 'robinhood'
`topics`	No	Topic filters
`address`	No	Contract address filter
`toBlock`	Yes	Hex block number or tag
`fromBlock`	Yes	Hex block number or tag, e.g. '0x112a880' or 'latest'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the tool is 'Heavy method' and requires authentication and payment, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or return format, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 pack the essential purpose, authentication, and cost information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key points: purpose, authentication, cost, and resource intensity. It could include more details about result handling, but is adequate for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. It merely restates the underlying RPC method. 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 'Fetch contract event logs (eth_getLogs)', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like eth_call or get_balance, which serve different purposes.

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 provides explicit authentication requirements (NODEFLARE_API_KEY or x402 wallet) and cost information (~$0.001 via x402). While it doesn't state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

Deploy Server