Nodeflare-mcp

rpc_call

Execute any JSON-RPC call on 23 EVM chains. Free for standard methods; heavy methods require API key or x402 wallet.

Instructions

Make any JSON-RPC call on any supported chain. Heavy methods (eth_getLogs, trace_*, debug_*) need NODEFLARE_API_KEY or an x402 wallet.

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>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "rpc_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	Chain slug, e.g. 'eth', 'base', 'robinhood'
`method`	Yes	JSON-RPC method name, e.g. 'eth_gasPrice'
`params`	No	JSON-RPC params array

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that heavy methods need API key or wallet, but fails to mention other behaviors such as response format, error handling, rate limits, or idempotency. Without annotations, more detail on behavior is expected.

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, both essential. Purpose stated upfront, followed by a critical usage note. No wasted words, excellent structure.

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?

Adequate for a generic RPC tool with full schema coverage, but lacks description of return value format, examples, or guidance on chain slug usage beyond the enum. Could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; heavy method reference is tangential to parameters. No enhancement of parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states the tool performs any JSON-RPC call on any supported chain, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eth_call or get_balance which are specific methods.

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 a condition for heavy methods requiring authentication, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. Usage is implied for arbitrary RPC methods not covered by siblings.

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

Deploy Server