Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BlazePhoenix MCP Server

BlazePhoenix MCP Server

by blazephoenixxyz-crypto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Verify a deployment on-chain

verify_deployment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirm that registry addresses for a chain and version match the on-chain deployment via your RPC, ensuring accurate deployment validation.

Instructions

Check that the registry addresses for a chain and version match what is deployed on-chain, through your RPC.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase | eth | optimism | arbitrum | robinhood, or a numeric chain id. Optional when your RPC has a single chain.
versionNolatest (default) | 1 | 2 | 2.0.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that the check runs through the user's RPC against live on-chain state, which is meaningful context, but it doesn't say what happens on mismatch or what the result conveys.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy; every clause (what is compared, for which inputs, via what channel) earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-optional-parameter read-only verification tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. A brief note on the outcome shape (match/mismatch or error) would close the remaining gap, since no output schema exists.

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%: the chain enum values, numeric-chain-id fallback, optionality, and version formats are all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (verify/check) and a precise resource (registry addresses for a chain and version) and clarifies it compares against on-chain state. An agent can tell it apart from listing tools conceptually, but no sibling is named (e.g., get_deployments), so it falls short of a 5.

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 never says when to prefer this over siblings like get_deployments or check_solvency, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Use is only implied by the check itself, matching the 'no when-to-use guidance' bar.

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