Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_team_info

Retrieve comprehensive team information for any crypto entity, including founders, verified LinkedIn backgrounds, prior exits, and doxx status, powered by an entity graph.

Instructions

Founders, LinkedIn-verified backgrounds, prior exits, doxx status. Entity-graph backed. 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_team_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_slugYesEntity slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds context such as 'Entity-graph backed' and lists the type of information returned. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens on missing entities, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral traits opaque.

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 concise at 10 words, front-loading the key value propositions. However, it is fragmented and could be more structured without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description lists the types of data returned (founders, backgrounds, exits, doxx status), but lacks details on the completeness of the output or edge cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% coverage for the single parameter 'entity_slug', which is adequately described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool returns founders, LinkedIn-verified backgrounds, prior exits, and doxx status, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_entity' or 'get_kol_influence'. However, it does not explicitly state the tool's verb or resource, relying on the name 'get_team_info' for that.

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 mentions 'Pro tier', implying an access requirement, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no scenario for when not to use it or mention of sibling tools.

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