Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

decode event logs

decode_event_logs

Read-only

Decode raw event log entries using a supplied Solidity event signature to interpret on-chain events and extract readable parameters.

Instructions

Decode raw event log entries with a supplied Solidity event signature.

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": {
      "eventSignature": "<eventSignature>",
      "logs": "<logs>"
    },
    "name": "decode_event_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`logs`	Yes
`eventSignature`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0-rc.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful requirement beyond them: decoding depends on a supplied Solidity event signature. It does not disclose return shape, error behavior for mismatched signatures, or whether logs are processed in order.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the reader wanting key operational details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a decoding tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain input formats and what the decoded result contains. It omits the signature format, expected log object fields, and any mention of the 100-item cap present in the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It labels 'logs' as raw event log entries and 'eventSignature' as a Solidity event signature, which helps, but it does not specify the expected signature syntax or the internal structure of each log object (topics, data, etc.).

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 ('decode') with a specific resource ('raw event log entries') and names the key dependency (a Solidity event signature). It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as contract_logs or read_contract, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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: decode when you have raw log entries and the matching event signature. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, what to do if the signature is unknown, or how it relates to contract_logs.

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

Deploy Server