MCP Etherscan Server

get-mined-blocks

Fetch blocks mined by an Ethereum address, with optional filters for block type, range, and pagination.

Instructions

Get blocks mined by an address

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get-mined-blocks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number for pagination
`offset`	No	Number of results per page (max 100)
`address`	Yes	Ethereum address (0x format)
`network`	No	Network name or chain ID (default: ethereum mainnet)
`endBlock`	No	Ending block number
`blockType`	No	Type of blocks to query	blocks
`startBlock`	No	Starting block number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Mar 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It merely states the action without disclosing behavior such as pagination, error handling, return format, or data freshness. The schema contains parameters, but the description itself is too minimal.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise at one sentence, front-loading the core action. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could include slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's capability (pagination, block range, network selection) without reading the entire schema.

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 each parameter is described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable. It does not explain parameter relationships or usage, keeping the score at baseline 3.

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?

The description 'Get blocks mined by an address' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-block-details and get-block-reward by focusing on blocks mined by a specific address.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-block-details or get-transactions. It lacks any context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when not to use it.

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