Skip to main content
Glama
chainfetch

ChainFETCH MCP Server

Official
by chainfetch

search_blocks_semantic

Find blockchain blocks using AI-powered semantic search that understands natural language queries about Ethereum data.

Instructions

Semantic search for blocks using AI-powered vector similarity matching

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe query to search for
limitNoThe number of results to return (default: 10)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for the 'search_blocks_semantic' tool. It proxies the tool call to the ChainFETCH API endpoint '/api/v1/ethereum/blocks/semantic_search' using a GET request with the provided arguments.
    case 'search_blocks_semantic':
      return await this.makeRequest('/api/v1/ethereum/blocks/semantic_search', 'GET', args, null, token);
  • Input schema definition for the 'search_blocks_semantic' tool, specifying required 'query' parameter and optional 'limit'.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        query: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'The query to search for',
        },
        limit: {
          type: 'integer',
          description: 'The number of results to return (default: 10)',
          default: 10,
        },
      },
      required: ['query'],
    },
  • index.js:270-287 (registration)
    Registration of the 'search_blocks_semantic' tool in the MCP tools array passed to server.setTools().
      name: 'search_blocks_semantic',
      description: 'Semantic search for blocks using AI-powered vector similarity matching',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          query: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The query to search for',
          },
          limit: {
            type: 'integer',
            description: 'The number of results to return (default: 10)',
            default: 10,
          },
        },
        required: ['query'],
      },
    },
  • Helper function 'makeRequest' used by the handler to perform authenticated HTTP requests to the ChainFETCH API.
    async makeRequest(endpoint, method = 'GET', params = {}, body = null, token = null) {
      const chainfetchToken = token || process.env.CHAINFETCH_API_TOKEN;
      
      if (!chainfetchToken) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidRequest,
          'CHAINFETCH_API_TOKEN is required'
        );
      }
    
      const url = new URL(`${API_BASE_URL}${endpoint}`);
      
      // Add query parameters for GET requests
      if (method === 'GET' && Object.keys(params).length > 0) {
        Object.entries(params).forEach(([key, value]) => {
          if (value !== undefined && value !== null) {
            if (Array.isArray(value)) {
              value.forEach(v => url.searchParams.append(`${key}[]`, v));
            } else {
              url.searchParams.append(key, value.toString());
            }
          }
        });
      }
    
      const fetchOptions = {
        method,
        headers: {
          'Authorization': `Bearer ${chainfetchToken}`,
          'Content-Type': 'application/json',
        },
      };
    
      if (body && method !== 'GET') {
        fetchOptions.body = JSON.stringify(body);
      }
    
      const response = await fetch(url.toString(), fetchOptions);
      
      if (!response.ok) {
        const errorText = await response.text();
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `API request failed: ${response.status} ${response.statusText} - ${errorText}`
        );
      }
    
      return await response.json();
    }
Behavior2/5

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 mentions 'AI-powered vector similarity matching', which hints at the underlying technology, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., speed, accuracy), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves in practice.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('Semantic search for blocks') and adds necessary detail ('using AI-powered vector similarity matching') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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?

Given the complexity of a semantic search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error handling, performance expectations, or how results are ranked/returned. While it covers the basic purpose, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and limitations in this server environment.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query formatting, semantic nuances, or limit implications). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('semantic search') and resource ('blocks'), and specifies the method ('AI-powered vector similarity matching'). It distinguishes from non-semantic search siblings like 'search_blocks_json' and 'search_blocks_llm' by highlighting the semantic/vector approach. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools like the various 'get_' 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?

The description implies usage for semantic/vector-based searches on blocks, suggesting it should be chosen over non-semantic alternatives like 'search_blocks_json' or 'search_blocks_llm'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool versus other block-related tools (e.g., 'get_block_info' for direct lookup) or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity in context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chainfetch/chainfetch-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server