Zora Coins MCP Server

Get profile

zora_get_profile

Fetch profile data for a wallet address or @handle to analyze user activity and holdings within the Zora Coins ecosystem on Base mainnet.

Instructions

Fetch profile for a wallet or @handle.

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "zora_get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identifier`	Yes

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:212-226 (registration)

Registration of the 'zora_get_profile' tool using server.registerTool, including schema and inline handler.

server.registerTool(
  "zora_get_profile",
  {
    title: "Get profile",
    description: "Fetch profile for a wallet or @handle.",
    inputSchema: {
      identifier: z.string().min(1, "identifier (wallet or handle) is required"),
    },
  },
  async ({ identifier }) => {
    // @ts-expect-error - TypeScript can't resolve barrel exports properly
    const resp = await CoinsSDK.getProfile({ identifier });
    return { content: [{ type: "text", text: json(resp) }] };
  }
);

src/index.ts:221-225 (handler)

The handler function that executes the tool: calls CoinsSDK.getProfile(identifier) and formats the response as MCP content.

async ({ identifier }) => {
  // @ts-expect-error - TypeScript can't resolve barrel exports properly
  const resp = await CoinsSDK.getProfile({ identifier });
  return { content: [{ type: "text", text: json(resp) }] };
}

src/index.ts:217-219 (schema)
Input schema using Zod: requires a string 'identifier' for wallet address or handle.
```
inputSchema: {
  identifier: z.string().min(1, "identifier (wallet or handle) is required"),
},
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedDec 29, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a fetch operation (implying read-only), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the profile data includes (e.g., basic info vs. detailed metadata). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Fetch profile for a wallet or @handle') directly contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' entails, potential return values, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about tool behavior and outcomes in this context.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics by indicating the 'identifier' parameter can be a 'wallet or @handle', which provides context beyond the schema's generic string type (0% coverage). However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., wallet address structure, handle syntax) or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding despite the low schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('profile') with specific targets ('wallet or @handle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'zora_get_profile_balances' or 'zora_get_profile_coins', which also fetch profile-related data but with different scopes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from sibling tools that also involve profiles (e.g., 'zora_get_profile_balances' for balances or 'zora_get_profile_coins' for coins), leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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