Skip to main content
Glama
jleeblack

Pion - MCP server for Pi Network

Look up a Pi transaction

query_transaction
Read-only

Look up a Pi Network transaction by hash and confirm whether it succeeded, including ledger, submitter, fee, and memo. Distinguish a not-found hash from a rejected transaction, and verify the result comes from Testnet or Mainnet.

Instructions

Look up a single Pi transaction by its hash and report whether it succeeded, which ledger it landed in, who submitted it, the fee charged, and its memo. Call this to verify that a specific transaction actually went through — a user or another service claiming a payment was made is not proof; this is. Reads public ledger data only. A hash this chain has no record of returns a not-found error, which is not the same answer as successful: false — that means the transaction did reach a ledger and was rejected there. This server reads Pi Testnet, and every result repeats that in its "network" field — always report which chain a figure came from. Pi Mainnet and Pi Testnet are separate ledgers sharing one address format, and the same address can hold different balances on each, so a result from the wrong chain looks entirely normal. Testnet Pi has no monetary value: never present a testnet balance as real holdings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesOn-chain transaction hash: exactly 64 hexadecimal characters (0-9 and a-f). Upper case is accepted and normalized to lower case. This is the Stellar transaction hash — not a Pi payment id, not a ledger sequence number, not a memo. Example: f8b6d6c83dfb32452330b677d901748fb6cece6c36d9b2deff64bead6e1c6925

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYes
memoNo
ledgerYes
networkYes
memo_typeYes
created_atYes
successfulYes
fee_accountNo
fee_chargedYes
result_codeNo
source_accountYes
operation_countYes
source_account_sequenceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / hash / description
      Previous value: -"Transaction hash (64 hex characters)"New value: +"On-chain transaction hash: exactly 64 hexadecimal characters (0-9 and a-f). Upper case is accepted and normalized to lower case. This is the Stellar transaction hash — not a Pi payment id, not a ledger sequence number, not a memo. Example: f8b6d6c83dfb32452330b677d901748fb6cece6c36d9b2deff64bead6e1c6925"
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that it reads public ledger data only, the meaning of not-found vs rejection, the network field repetition, and the separate-ledger warning with testnet value. No contradictions.

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 detailed but well-structured: first paragraph presents core functionality and purpose; second paragraph adds critical caveats. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing substance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given it has an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, error semantics, network context, and value warnings. All important behavioral aspects are addressed for a query tool of moderate complexity.

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% with a detailed pattern and example for the hash parameter. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('look up a single Pi transaction by its hash') and specifies the reported fields (success, ledger, submitter, fee, memo). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on verifying a specific transaction, contrasting with balance checks or payment listings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to call: 'to verify that a specific transaction actually went through' and that a claim is not proof. Describes the distinction between not-found errors and rejection, warns about network confusion and testnet value. Provides clear context for correct interpretation.

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/jleeblack/pion-mcp'

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