Skip to main content
Glama
dewanshparashar

Arbitrum MCP Server

arbos_version

Retrieve the ArbOS version number for any Arbitrum chain, including Xai, Arbitrum One, or Nova, to verify system compatibility and monitor chain specifications.

Instructions

Get the ArbOS version number for any Arbitrum chain. Use this for questions like 'what ArbOS version is Xai running?', 'ArbOS version of Arbitrum One', 'what version of ArbOS', or 'check ArbOS version'. Supports chain names like 'Xai', 'Arbitrum One', 'Nova', etc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rpcUrlNoThe RPC URL of the Arbitrum node (optional if default is set)
chainNameNoChain name (e.g., 'Xai', 'Arbitrum One', 'Nova') - will auto-resolve to RPC URL

Implementation Reference

  • Handler logic for the 'arbos_version' MCP tool. Resolves RPC URL from chainName or rpcUrl, instantiates ArbitrumChainClient, calls getArbOSVersion(), and returns formatted text response.
    case "arbos_version": {
      const rpcUrl = await this.resolveRpcUrl(
        (args.rpcUrl as string) || (args.chainName as string)
      );
      const chainDataClient = new ArbitrumChainClient(rpcUrl);
      const version = await chainDataClient.getArbOSVersion();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `ArbOS Version: ${version}`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and inputSchema for 'arbos_version', used for both validation and tool listing/registration in getAvailableTools().
    {
      name: "arbos_version",
      description:
        "Get the ArbOS version number for any Arbitrum chain. Use this for questions like 'what ArbOS version is Xai running?', 'ArbOS version of Arbitrum One', 'what version of ArbOS', or 'check ArbOS version'. Supports chain names like 'Xai', 'Arbitrum One', 'Nova', etc.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          rpcUrl: {
            type: "string",
            description:
              "The RPC URL of the Arbitrum node (optional if default is set)",
          },
          chainName: {
            type: "string",
            description:
              "Chain name (e.g., 'Xai', 'Arbitrum One', 'Nova') - will auto-resolve to RPC URL",
          },
        },
        required: [],
      },
    },
  • Core helper function getArbOSVersion() in ArbitrumChainClient that fetches ArbOS version using @arbitrum/orbit-sdk/utils or fallback RPC call to 'arb_getVersion'.
    async getArbOSVersion(): Promise<string> {
      try {
        // Try using orbit-sdk first
        const version = await getArbOSVersion(this.publicClient);
        return version.toString();
      } catch (error) {
        // Fallback to direct RPC call
        try {
          const version = await this.makeRpcCall("arb_getVersion", []);
          return version;
        } catch (rpcError) {
          // Return "Unknown" instead of throwing error for better UX
          return "Unknown (RPC does not support ArbOS version queries)";
        }
      }
    }
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Supports chain names like 'Xai', 'Arbitrum One', 'Nova', etc.' and implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned version number. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('Get the ArbOS version number...') followed by usage examples. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying supported chain names, but it could be slightly more structured by separating examples from core functionality for even better readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as explaining what the version number looks like or common pitfalls, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters ('rpcUrl' and 'chainName') adequately. The description adds marginal value by providing examples of chain names (e.g., 'Xai', 'Arbitrum One', 'Nova') and noting that 'chainName' auto-resolves to RPC URL, but it does not explain parameter interactions or usage beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ArbOS version number for any Arbitrum chain'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on version retrieval. It provides concrete examples of use cases like 'what ArbOS version is Xai running?' which reinforces its distinct role.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., for questions about ArbOS versions) and mentions support for specific chain names like 'Xai' and 'Arbitrum One'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'chain_info' or 'comprehensive_chain_status', which might offer overlapping or broader chain information.

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/dewanshparashar/arbitrum-mcp'

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