Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flowscan-mcp

flowscan-mcp

by joshavenue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Validator detail with its stakers

flowscan_validator_stakers
Read-only

Retrieve a Hyperliquid validator's staking summary and ranked delegator list, including commission, total delegated, staker count, jailed status, and HYPE amounts.

Instructions

Staking page validator drill-down: one validator's summary (name, commission, total delegated, staker count, jailed) plus its delegators (stakers) as {address, amount HYPE}, largest first. validator is an address or a validator name (e.g. 'Hyper Foundation 2'). Large validators have thousands of stakers; use limit/offset or search.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "validator": "<validator>"
    },
    "name": "flowscan_validator_stakers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax list items (default per tool).
fieldsNoPaths to keep, relative to `data` (list tools: each row); misses go to _fieldsNotFound.
offsetNoList items to skip.
searchNoFilter stakers by address substring.
validatorYesValidator address or name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are returned 'largest first', the staker row shape is {address, amount HYPE}, and large validators can have thousands of stakers. This ordering, result-shape and scale information is beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the drill-down purpose and return shape before the pagination advice. Every clause carries information, though the field enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does most of it: summary fields, staker row format, ordering, and pagination strategy. The only gap is the concrete default for `limit` ('default per tool' is left opaque).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: `validator` accepts an address OR a name, with a concrete example ('Hyper Foundation 2'), and it explains the role of search (address substring filtering) alongside limit/offset for paging.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a single validator's summary plus its delegator list, and enumerates the summary fields (name, commission, total delegated, staker count, jailed). The phrase 'validator drill-down' distinguishes it from flowscan_staking_overview without opening either schema.

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 'Staking page validator drill-down' framing plus the warning that large validators have thousands of stakers, with the directive to 'use limit/offset or search', gives clear context for how to call it. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it supersedes (e.g. flowscan_staking_overview) or stating when-not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools