Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

nft info

nft_info

Read-only

Reads ERC-721 ownership and token URI for a given contract and token ID directly from chain data, avoiding external metadata fetches.

Instructions

Read ERC-721 ownership and URI without fetching external metadata.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "tokenId": "<tokenId>"
    },
    "name": "nft_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`address`	Yes
`tokenId`	Yes
`blockNumber`	No	latest

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by warning that external metadata is not fetched, but it says nothing about historical-state requirements for blockNumber, failure modes for non-ERC-721 contracts, or return shape.

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 tight sentence with the most important scoping fact front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and behavior detail noted elsewhere.

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?

For a three-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the core purpose and the metadata caveat, which is the minimum viable. It stops short of explaining blockNumber semantics or error conditions, which leaves real gaps before an agent can call it confidently in historical or edge-case scenarios.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the burden falls entirely on the description, and it documents none of the three parameters. 'Ownership and URI' hints at what address plus tokenId produce, but blockNumber, a non-obvious parameter that changes the query to a historical state, is never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (ERC-721 ownership and URI), which cleanly separates it from the ERC-20-oriented token_info sibling. The scope qualifier 'without fetching external metadata' further narrows what the agent can expect, though the sibling it contrasts with is never named.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for NFT ownership lookups, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It never says to prefer token_info for fungible tokens or which tool handles metadata resolution when the caller does want it.

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

Deploy Server