chain_statusReturns the current Solana slot, epoch, block height, and recommended priority fee so agents can anchor timestamps and verify RPC health before on-chain analysis.
Current Solana slot, epoch, block height and recommended priority fee. Cheap orientation call — use it to anchor timestamps and confirm the RPC is healthy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-developmentDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that the call is "cheap" (low cost/latency) and suitable for health checks, but does not quantify or add much beyond that. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second states when and why to use it. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the exact returned fields (slot, epoch, block height, priority fee). For a zero-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by listing only return values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the specific resource and its return payload: current Solana slot, epoch, block height, and recommended priority fee. This clearly separates it from transaction/account siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Use it to anchor timestamps and confirm the RPC is healthy" gives a concrete when-to-use condition and frames it as an orientation step. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.