MIDL MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

midl_read_contract

Read-only

Read data from any smart contract by providing its address, ABI, and function name. Returns the function result for blockchain queries.

Instructions

Read data from a smart contract. Requires contract address, ABI, and function name. Returns the function result.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "abi": "<abi>",
      "functionName": "<functionName>"
    },
    "name": "midl_read_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	Yes	Contract address
`abi`	Yes	Contract ABI (JSON array)
`functionName`	Yes	Function name to call
`args`	No	Function arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so tool's safety is known. Description adds that it returns the function result, which is useful beyond annotations.

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?

Two direct sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and requirements.

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?

Given no output schema, description mentions return type. For a simple read operation, this is sufficient. Missing error or edge case info but acceptable.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), so description adds little beyond listing required inputs. No additional formatting or encoding guidance.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read data from a smart contract' with required inputs and output. Distinguishes from write operations like midl_write_contract.

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?

Description indicates it is for reading contract data, which inherently implies it should be used instead of write tool for read purposes. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear.

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