Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

by UNI-ASYNC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

chain status

chain_status
Read-only

Verifies chain ID, RPC health, and current block to confirm Vitruveo mainnet connectivity and node status.

Instructions

Verify chain ID, RPC health, and current block.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0-rc.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 that the probe touches chain ID, RPC health, and block height, but says nothing about failure modes, latency, or caching behavior an agent might care about when diagnosing a flaky RPC.

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 nine-word sentence with the verb and all three checked resources front-loaded. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs reordering.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey roughly what comes back; it names the three checked items, which partially serves that role. However, it does not indicate the shape of the response (e.g., numeric chain ID, boolean health, block number) or what happens when the RPC is unreachable, leaving gaps for a diagnostic tool.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter knowledge 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 pairs a specific verb ('Verify') with three concrete resources: chain ID, RPC health, and current block. It is clearly a connectivity/health probe, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like block_details, which also concerns the current block, so an agent could momentarily hesitate between the two.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Verify ... RPC health' suggests a pre-flight connectivity check before heavier calls. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 16 siblings, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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