Skip to main content
Glama
alexandresanlim

Mempool MCP Server

get-address-txs

Retrieve Bitcoin transaction history for any address to track payments, verify transfers, and monitor blockchain activity.

Instructions

Returns transactions for an address

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesThe address to get txs for

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler logic: Makes API client request to `address/${address}/txs` endpoint to fetch transactions for the address.
    async getAddressTxs({ address }: { address: string }): Promise<IAddressTxResponse[] | null> {
      return this.client.makeRequest<IAddressTxResponse[]>(`address/${address}/txs`);
    }
  • Helper method in AddressService that calls the request service and formats the transaction data into a string response.
    async getAddressTxs({ address }: IAddressParameter): Promise<string> {
      const data = await this.requestService.getAddressTxs({ address });
      return formatResponse<IAddressTxResponse[]>("Address Transactions", data);
    }
  • Registers the MCP 'get-address-txs' tool, including input schema (address: string) and thin handler that delegates to AddressService.
    private registerGetAddressTxsHandler(): void {
      this.server.tool(
        "get-address-txs",
        "Returns transactions for an address",
        {
          address: z.string().describe("The address to get txs for"),
        },
        async ({ address }) => {
          const text = await this.addressService.getAddressTxs({ address });
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text }] };
        }
      );
    }
  • Zod input schema definition for the 'get-address-txs' tool.
    {
      address: z.string().describe("The address to get txs for"),
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns transactions but does not specify whether this includes historical, pending, or filtered data, nor does it mention any constraints like rate limits, permissions, or response format. This lack of detail makes it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, exemplifying optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of transaction data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what type of transactions are returned (e.g., confirmed, unconfirmed), the response structure, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured support, more contextual detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it only repeats the parameter's purpose without providing additional context like address format or validation rules. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Returns transactions for an address' clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('transactions for an address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get-address-txs-chain' or 'get-address-txs-mempool', leaving the scope vague. This places it at a basic level of clarity without sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to address transactions (e.g., 'get-address-txs-chain', 'get-address-txs-mempool'), there is no indication of context, exclusions, or prerequisites. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexandresanlim/mempool-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server