Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@blockchainacademics/mcp

@blockchainacademics/mcp

Official
by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

request_custom_research

Submit a custom research request with your topic and contact email to receive a pricing quote and order ID from a deep-research analyst.

Instructions

Escalate to BCA deep-researcher skill. Required: contact_email, topic. Pro tier. Returns order_id + pricing.

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": {
      "contact_email": "<contact_email>",
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "request_custom_research"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNo
topicYes
contact_emailYesRequired. Contact email for report delivery.
deadline_daysNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates escalation to a skill (suggesting async processing), but does not detail side effects, rate limits, or authentication. Adequate for a straightforward request 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?

Single sentence conveys action, prerequisites, tier, and outputs. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Specifies inputs and outputs but lacks explanation of workflow (e.g., async processing, delivery method). For a request tool without output schema, it is mostly complete but could add a note on expected turnaround or process.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only 2 of 4 parameters (contact_email, topic) are described in text. Depth and deadline_days are omitted despite low schema description coverage (25%). Description adds meaning for required ones but neglects optional parameters.

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?

Clear verb ('Request custom research') with specific resource ('BCA deep-researcher skill'), required parameters listed, and return fields stated. Distinct from sibling tools which are data retrieval queries.

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?

Specifies 'Pro tier' indicating audience, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or exclude conditions. Context implies it's for custom requests not covered by other 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