Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

monitor_keyword

Trigger a webhook notification when a specified keyword appears in the corpus. Input the keyword and an HTTPS webhook URL to start monitoring.

Instructions

Register a keyword monitor: fires a webhook when the keyword appears across corpus. Required: keyword, webhook_url (https URL). Async, 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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>",
      "webhook_url": "<webhook_url>"
    },
    "name": "monitor_keyword"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYesKeyword or phrase to monitor.
webhook_urlYesHTTPS webhook URL for notifications (required).
window_hoursNoLookback window in hours.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses async execution and Pro tier requirement, but does not mention webhook payload format, rate limits, or how to cancel/duplicate monitors. More detail would improve transparency.

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?

Description is one concise sentence with key facts front-loaded. It efficiently communicates purpose, requirements, and constraints. Could be slightly more structured but is already efficient.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks information about cancellation, duplicate monitors, and webhook payload details, leaving some gaps for a registration tool.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description mentions keyword and webhook_url as required but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Register a keyword monitor' and explains it fires a webhook. The verb 'register' combined with 'keyword monitor' is specific and distinct from the sibling tools, which are primarily get/list/check operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description lists required parameters (keyword, webhook_url) and notes that it's async and Pro tier. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the lack of direct sibling monitor tools makes the usage context clear.

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