Fuul MCP Server

list_chains

Retrieves a list of supported blockchain chains with metadata including chain IDs, testnet status, and payout availability from the Fuul API.

Instructions

Lists supported blockchain chains from GET /public-api/v1/metadata/chains. Uses server metadata (not a hardcoded catalog); responses are cached with ETag/Cache-Control. Each chain includes snake_case fields such as chain_id, is_testnet, optional svm_network and webapp_capabilities, and can_be_used_for_payouts (boolean: true where Fuul reward/payout infra is deployed). Params: none (pass {}). Pagination: not exposed by this tool until the API adds cursor/limit.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_chains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.12.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, description thoroughly explains behavior: uses server metadata, caching mechanism, field details (snake_case, specific fields, boolean semantics), and pagination limitations.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded, but includes extra details (e.g., field descriptions) that add value yet slightly reduce conciseness; still acceptable.

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?

Covers all relevant aspects: source, caching, field semantics, pagination limitations. Adequate for a simple list tool without output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, schema coverage 100%; description confirms no params needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional meaning is necessary.

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?

Clearly states it lists supported blockchain chains from a specific API endpoint, differentiating from sibling tools that focus on payouts, incentives, etc.

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?

Provides context on how it works (server metadata, caching) and that no parameters are needed, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools since no competitors exist.

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