Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_mica_status

Retrieve EU MiCA compliance status for a crypto project by providing its entity slug.

Instructions

EU MiCA compliance tracker per project. Pro tier.

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": {
      "entity_slug": "<entity_slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_mica_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_slugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only mentions 'Pro tier', hinting at access restrictions, but lacks details on whether the tool modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits.

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?

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise. However, it lacks structure and buries the 'Pro tier' detail, which might be better as a separate note.

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 output schema, the description does not explain return values or error conditions. The tool is simple (one parameter) but the description still feels incomplete for 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'per project', implying the entity_slug parameter identifies a project. This adds some meaning beyond the schema constraints, though format expectations are missing.

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 tool tracks EU MiCA compliance per project, and the name 'get_mica_status' aligns. It distinguishes from broader tools like 'get_regulatory_status' by specifying EU MiCA. However, the verb 'track' is implied rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_regulatory_status' or other compliance tools. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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