Skip to main content
Glama
alexandresanlim

Mempool MCP Server

get-tx-status

Check Bitcoin transaction status by providing a transaction ID to verify confirmation and network state.

Instructions

Returns status for a transaction

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txidYesThe txid to get status for

Implementation Reference

  • Registers the MCP 'get-tx-status' tool: defines description, input schema (txid: 64-hex string), and handler lambda that delegates to TxService.getTxStatus and structures MCP response.
    private registerGetTxStatusHandler(): void {
      this.server.tool(
        "get-tx-status",
        "Returns status for a transaction",
        {
          txid: z.string().length(64).describe("The txid to get status for"),
        },
        async ({ txid }) => {
          const text = await this.txService.getTxStatus({ txid });
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text }] };
        }
      );
    }
  • Core handler logic in TxRequestService: performs the actual API request to `/tx/${txid}/status` via IApiClient.makeRequest, typed to ITxStatusResponse.
    async getTxStatus({ txid }: { txid: string }): Promise<ITxStatusResponse | null> {
      return this.client.makeRequest<ITxStatusResponse>(`tx/${txid}/status`);
    }
  • Intermediate service layer: calls TxRequestService.getTxStatus and formats the response into a string using formatResponse.
    async getTxStatus({ txid }: { txid: string }): Promise<string> {
      const data = await this.requestService.getTxStatus({ txid });
      return formatResponse<ITxStatusResponse>("Transaction Status", data);
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of the transaction status response used throughout the implementation.
    export interface ITxStatusResponse {
      confirmed: boolean;
      block_height?: number;
      block_hash?: string;
      block_time?: number;
    } 
  • Utility function to format response objects into readable key-value strings, used in TxService.
    export const formatResponse = <T extends object>(
      title: string,
      data: T | null
    ): string => {
      if (!data) {
        return `Failed to retrieve ${title.toLowerCase()} data.`;
      }
      let msg = `${title}:\n`;
      for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(data)) {
        msg += `${key}: ${value ?? "N/A"}\n`;
      }
      return msg.trim();
    };
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Returns'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'status' specifically includes (e.g., confirmed, pending, failed). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' returns (e.g., confirmation count, block height, mempool status), which is critical for a tool with siblings that might overlap. This leaves the agent guessing about the output format and use cases.

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 100%, with the parameter 'txid' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining transaction ID formats or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('status for a transaction'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-tx-info' or 'get-tx-raw', which likely provide different transaction-related information, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.

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 siblings like 'get-tx-info' and 'get-tx-raw' available, there's no indication of what 'status' entails compared to other transaction data, leaving usage context unclear.

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