Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nodit MCP Server

Nodit MCP Server

Official
by noditlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Nodit Data APIs

list_nodit_data_apis
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available Nodit Data API operations so developers can identify and use the correct blockchain data endpoints.

Instructions

Lists available Nodit Data API operations.

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_nodit_data_apis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no information about what the listing contains, its granularity, or how results relate to the sibling spec/query tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than genuine density.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the listing returns (operation names? IDs? categories?) and how an agent should proceed after receiving it. Given several near-identically named sibling list tools, this one sentence is not enough to let an agent use it confidently.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no schema semantics are missing or contradicted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a specific verb (Lists) and resource (Nodit Data API operations), so the basic action is clear. But it does not distinguish this from closely named siblings such as list_nodit_multichain_apis or list_nodit_node_apis — what makes an API 'Data' versus the others is left undefined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other list_* tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of chaining into get_nodit_api_spec or call_nodit_api. The agent must infer the tool's role purely from its name.

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