Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@blockchainacademics/mcp

@blockchainacademics/mcp

Official
by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_bitcoin_l2_status

Retrieve the current status of Bitcoin Layer 2 networks such as Stacks, Rootstock, BOB, Babylon, Merlin, and Bitlayer.

Instructions

BTC L2s: Stacks, Rootstock, BOB, Babylon, Merlin, Bitlayer. Starter tier.

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": "get_bitcoin_l2_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'Starter tier', which hints at limited scope but doesn't explain data freshness, permissions, read-only nature, or return structure. Lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the list of L2s and tier, but every sentence should earn its place; this one does not fully explain the tool's behavior.

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?

With no output schema and no param details, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., status fields, metrics). It only lists L2s and a tier label, leaving the agent with little understanding of the response format or content.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema description coverage). The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none are needed. Baseline 4 applies here.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description lists specific L2s (Stacks, Rootstock, BOB, Babylon, Merlin, Bitlayer) and mentions 'Starter tier', implying it retrieves status for these. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and doesn't clearly state what aspect of status is returned, making it somewhat vague. It could be confused with sibling 'get_l2_comparison'.

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 similar siblings like 'get_l2_comparison'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for appropriate use provided.

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