Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-azeth

mcp-azeth

by azeth-protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

azeth_get_agreement

View full payment agreement details, including status, payment history, and next execution time, to verify terms before executing or cancelling.

Instructions

View full details of a payment agreement including status, payment history, and next execution time.

Use this when: You want to inspect an agreement before executing or cancelling it, verify terms after creation, or check how much has been paid so far.

Returns: Complete agreement details with human-readable amounts, status, and timing.

Note: This is a read-only on-chain query. No gas or private key required for the query itself, but account resolution may need your key if using "me" or "#N".

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "agreementId": "<agreementId>"
    },
    "name": "azeth_get_agreement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoTarget chain. Defaults to AZETH_CHAIN env var or "baseSepolia". Accepts "base", "baseSepolia", "ethereumSepolia", "ethereum" (and aliases like "base-sepolia", "eth-sepolia", "sepolia", "eth", "mainnet").
accountYesThe payer smart account: Ethereum address, participant name, "me", or "#N".
agreementIdYesThe agreement ID to query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.9

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Comprehensive disclosure appropriate for zero annotations: explicitly states 'read-only on-chain query,' gas requirements ('no gas'), and authentication needs ('no private key required...but account resolution may need your key'). Also clarifies return characteristics ('human-readable amounts') and specific account syntax caveats.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (main description, Use this when, Returns, Note). Front-loaded with core action. Every sentence conveys unique operational guidance; no redundancy with schema or sibling tool names.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete for a read-only query tool: describes return value contents ('Complete agreement details with human-readable amounts') despite lack of output schema, covers blockchain-specific concerns (gas, keys, on-chain nature), and contextualizes within the broader agreement lifecycle (creation→inspection→execution/cancellation).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining security implications for specific account parameter values ('me' or '#N' require key for resolution), providing critical semantic context beyond the schema's type description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Excellent specificity: 'View full details of a payment agreement' provides clear verb+resource, and enumerates specific data points (status, payment history, next execution time). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like azeth_execute_agreement and azeth_cancel_agreement by emphasizing inspection/verification rather than mutation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Exemplary explicit guidelines under 'Use this when:' covering three distinct scenarios (pre-execution inspection, post-creation verification, payment history checks). Directly references sibling operations 'executing or cancelling' to establish clear selection criteria vs state-changing alternatives.

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