Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Flux Cloud MCP server

Flux Cloud MCP server

Official
by RunOnFlux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Network overview

flux_get_network_info

Retrieve Flux network status and deployment pricing data, including node counts, block height, FLUX/USD rate, and payment address.

Instructions

Node counts by tier, current block height, FLUX/USD rate and the deployment payment address.

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": "flux_get_network_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, whether the call is read-only (implied only by the 'get' name), rate limits, or whether values are live or cached. Listing the returned fields is useful but is content description rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 return contents with no filler or preamble. Every phrase earns its place, and the key information leads.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the four data points returned, which is enough for an agent to decide whether this tool answers its question. It falls short only on freshness/volatility of the values and any access requirements.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description appropriately spends no words on argument syntax, leaving the empty schema as the complete contract.

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 name and description together establish a specific read operation ('get') over a specific resource (network info), and the enumerated contents (node counts by tier, block height, FLUX/USD rate, payment address) make clear what the agent gets back. It is distinguishable from the app-deployment siblings like flux_deploy_app and flux_get_app, though it doesn't explicitly say it is not those.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative or complementary tool such as flux_get_pricing. The agent must infer that this is the tool to call for chain-level statistics simply from the content list.

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