scdo-agent-plugins

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Chain block height

chain_block_height

Read-only

Fetch the current SCDO chain block height for a specific shard or all five shards. Use shard 0 for EVM Shard0; shards 1-4 for SCDO Classic.

Instructions

Current block height of the SCDO chain per shard (0 = EVM Shard0, chainId 5680; 1-4 = SCDO Classic). Omit shard for all five.

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": "chain_block_height"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`shard`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds domain context by mapping shard IDs to networks (0 = EVM Shard0, chainId 5680; 1-4 = SCDO Classic), which is not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed immediately by the parameter semantics. No filler.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and parameter meaning adequately. It does not state the return shape when shard is omitted (single integer vs. per-shard mapping), which is the only remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines the shard value space, maps 0 and 1-4 to specific chains, and explains the null/omit behavior (returns all five). Nothing needed to call the parameter correctly is missing.

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 states a specific verb+resource: current block height of the SCDO chain. It is clearly distinct from siblings like chain_tx_status and chain_address_balance, though it never explicitly names an alternative to route against.

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?

"Omit shard for all five" gives real usage instruction for the default case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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