Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@blockchainacademics/mcp

@blockchainacademics/mcp

Official
by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_roadmap

Access a crypto project roadmap verified by BCA editorial review. Obtain a fact-checked development timeline.

Instructions

Project roadmap with BCA editorial fact-check. Starter 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_roadmap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_slugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Starter tier' (implying possible restrictions) but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 avoids verbosity but is not optimally structured. It front-loads the core idea but omits necessary details like a verb, scope, or usage context. It could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain what a 'roadmap' contains, what 'BCA editorial fact-check' means, or what the response format is. This is inadequate for a tool with a single parameter and no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the sole parameter 'entity_slug'. The parameter name is somewhat descriptive, but the description does not clarify format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 'Project roadmap with BCA editorial fact-check. Starter tier.' vaguely indicates the tool provides a roadmap with fact-checking for a project. It does not use a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', and 'Starter tier' is ambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_entity' by the term 'roadmap', but lacks specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large list of sibling tools, the agent has no context for selecting 'get_roadmap' over similar data-retrieval tools, e.g., 'get_explainer' or 'get_article'.

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