@scom82/topvisor-mcp

topvisor_request

Use as a generic escape hatch to call any Topvisor API v2 method, covering undocumented endpoints not available as typed tools.

Instructions

Generic escape hatch: call any Topvisor API v2 method directly. Covers all API methods including undocumented ones not yet available as typed tools. Use operator/service/method path and pass body verbatim.

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": {
      "operator": "<operator>",
      "service": "<service>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "topvisor_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`operator`	Yes
`service`	Yes	e.g. projects_2, keywords_2, positions_2, snapshots_2, bank_2
`method`	Yes	Method path, e.g. "projects", "checker/go", "searchers_regions/export"
`body`	No	Request body, passed verbatim as JSON

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states it calls the API directly and passes the body verbatim, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or side effects.

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, the first states purpose and the second gives usage pattern. No redundant information, very efficient.

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?

Given the tool's generic nature, the description covers its main use case. However, since there is no output schema, it could mention that the response format varies by API method or provide a link to API docs. As is, it's adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has good coverage (75%) and descriptions for parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, only summarizing the parameter roles (operator/service/method/path/body). Baseline 3 applies.

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 it's a generic escape hatch for calling any Topvisor API v2 method directly, distinguishing it from the many specific sibling tools by covering all methods including undocumented ones.

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 tells users to use operator/service/method path and pass body verbatim, and implies using this tool when no typed tool exists. However, it does not explicitly say to prefer typed tools when available.

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

Deploy Server