Skip to main content
Glama
dewanshparashar

Arbitrum MCP Server

node_health

Monitor Arbitrum node health status to verify operational status and connectivity. Requires admin API access for accurate health checks.

Instructions

Check Arbitrum node health status (requires admin API access - may not work with public RPCs)

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

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the RPC call to 'arb_getHealth' to retrieve node health status and handles errors gracefully.
    async getHealth(): Promise<NodeHealth> {
      try {
        const response = await this.makeRpcCall("arb_getHealth", []);
        return {
          status: response.status || "unknown",
          lastUpdated: new Date().toISOString(),
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          status: "unavailable",
          lastUpdated: new Date().toISOString(),
          error:
            "Health check not supported on this RPC endpoint. This method typically requires access to a node's admin API.",
        };
      }
    }
  • MCP server request handler for the 'node_health' tool call, which resolves the RPC URL, instantiates NitroNodeClient, calls getHealth(), and returns the JSON-formatted result.
    case "node_health": {
      const rpcUrl = await this.resolveRpcUrl(
        (args.rpcUrl as string) || (args.chainName as string)
      );
      const nodeClient = new NitroNodeClient(rpcUrl);
      const health = await nodeClient.getHealth();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(health, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition and registration in the list of available tools, including input schema for rpcUrl or chainName.
    {
      name: "node_health",
      description:
        "Check Arbitrum node health status (requires admin API access - may not work with public RPCs)",
      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",
          },
        },
        required: [],
      },
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of the NodeHealth response object used by the getHealth() method.
    export interface NodeHealth {
      status: string;
      lastUpdated: string;
      error?: string;
    }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context about access requirements ('requires admin API access') and compatibility limitations ('may not work with public RPCs'), which goes beyond what the input schema provides. However, it doesn't describe what 'health status' actually means, what metrics are checked, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions - significant gaps for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that packs essential information: the core purpose followed immediately by critical usage constraints. Every word earns its place with zero waste. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description provides some important context about access requirements but leaves significant gaps. For a health-checking tool, the description doesn't explain what constitutes 'health status', what metrics or checks are performed, what the return format looks like, or what happens when the check fails. The access requirement information is valuable but insufficient for full completeness.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions RPC URLs in the context of admin access requirements but doesn't provide additional semantic context about the parameters themselves. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check Arbitrum node health status' - a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Arbitrum node health status'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on node health rather than other aspects like block tracing, balance checking, or chain status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar health-related tools like 'arb_check_publisher_health' or 'comprehensive_chain_status'.

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: 'requires admin API access - may not work with public RPCs'. This gives important guidance about prerequisites and limitations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios, which prevents a perfect score.

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