block_detailsRetrieve a Vitruveo block by number or latest to inspect chain details without running a node.
Read a block by number or latest.
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": "block_details"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | No | latest |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-rc.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that and the schema: it does not say whether "latest" means head vs finalized, whether unknown block numbers error or return null, or what the returned block payload contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it borders on under-specification for a lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-optional-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and annotations plus the schema cover the safety and typing burdens. Missing are the return-shape hint (no output schema exists) and the semantics of "latest", which an agent would need to reason about freshness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does partially by naming the two accepted modes (a block number or "latest"). It does not state that "latest" is the default, nor the numeric format (decimal digits, up to 20 characters) enforced by the pattern.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Read a block" states a specific verb and resource, and "by number or latest" narrows the lookup mode. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as transaction_details or chain_status, though it never says which chain or network it reads from.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like chain_status (head/height info) or transaction_details, nor any precondition or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.