Skip to main content
Glama
dewanshparashar

Arbitrum MCP Server

arbtrace_get

Retrieve specific trace data from Arbitrum transactions using a defined path to analyze transaction execution details and debug smart contract interactions.

Instructions

Get specific trace data at a given path within a transaction (requires trace API)

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler implementation for 'arbtrace_get'. It resolves the RPC URL from chainName or rpcUrl, creates a NitroNodeClient instance, calls its traceGet method with the provided txHash and path, and returns the result as JSON text content.
    case "arbtrace_get": {
      const rpcUrl = await this.resolveRpcUrl(
        (args.rpcUrl as string) || (args.chainName as string)
      );
      const nodeClient = new NitroNodeClient(rpcUrl);
      const result = await nodeClient.traceGet(
        args.txHash as string,
        (args.path as string[]) || []
      );
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:1323-1351 (registration)
    Registration of the 'arbtrace_get' tool in the getAvailableTools() method, which is returned in response to listTools requests. Includes the tool name, description, and input schema definition.
      name: "arbtrace_get",
      description:
        "Get specific trace data at a given path within a transaction (requires trace API)",
      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') - will auto-resolve to RPC URL",
          },
          txHash: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Transaction hash",
          },
          path: {
            type: "array",
            description: "Path to specific trace data",
            items: { type: "string" },
          },
        },
        required: ["txHash"],
      },
    },
  • Supporting method in NitroNodeClient that performs the actual 'arbtrace_get' RPC call to the Arbitrum node with txHash and path parameters, handling errors and returning TraceResult.
    async traceGet(txHash: string, path: string[]): Promise<TraceResult> {
      try {
        const traces = await this.makeRpcCall("arbtrace_get", [txHash, path]);
        return { traces };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          traces: null,
          error: `Trace get not supported on this RPC endpoint: ${
            (error as Error).message
          }`,
        };
      }
    }
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 'requires trace API', hinting at a dependency or permission need, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or what 'specific trace data' entails (e.g., format, size). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 the core action ('Get specific trace data') and includes a key constraint ('requires trace API'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and complex trace data retrieval. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, which are critical for effective use by an AI agent in this context.

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 already documents all parameters (rpcUrl, chainName, txHash, path). The description adds minimal value by implying 'path' is used to locate trace data, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('specific trace data at a given path within a transaction'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'arbtrace_transaction' or 'arbtrace_call', which likely retrieve different types of trace data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires trace API'), which provides some context, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'arbtrace_transaction' or 'arbtrace_call' from the sibling list. No explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or comparisons is provided.

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