Starknet MCP Server

get_starknet_transaction_receipt

Retrieve the receipt of a Starknet transaction by providing its transaction hash. Optionally specify the network (mainnet or sepolia).

Instructions

Get transaction receipt

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": {
      "txHash": "<txHash>"
    },
    "name": "get_starknet_transaction_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`txHash`	Yes	Transaction hash
`network`	No	Network name (e.g., 'mainnet', 'sepolia'). Defaults to Mainnet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 19, 2025

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool name without adding any behavior details (e.g., error handling, default network, or data returned).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise (2 words) but lacks structure and detail. It earns its place by stating purpose, but is too brief to be fully effective.

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?

Despite low complexity and good schema coverage, the description fails to explain what a receipt is or how it differs from get_starknet_transaction. No output schema; description is incomplete for practical use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Get transaction receipt', which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_starknet_transaction, which might also involve receipt data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description provides no context for selection.

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