Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@blockchainacademics/mcp

@blockchainacademics/mcp

Official
by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_mcps

List crypto MCP servers to discover their tool surfaces and capabilities for AI agent integration.

Instructions

Directory of crypto MCP servers (meta: the MCP-of-MCPs). Discover peer MCPs with their tool surfaces.

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": "list_mcps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly indicates read-only listing behavior. No mention of destructive side effects. Adequate for a simple listing tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose. Efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no parameters and no output schema, description adequately explains tool returns. Could elaborate on 'tool surfaces' but sufficient for a meta directory tool.

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; schema coverage is 100% (empty). Description adds context about returning tool surfaces. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description meets this.

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?

Clearly states it's a directory of crypto MCP servers (meta MCP-of-MCPs) to discover peer MCPs and their tool surfaces. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific crypto data tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage as a discovery tool for other MCPs, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives given. Context from sibling list suggests it's a meta tool, but guidance is not explicit.

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