Provides tools for querying Ethereum blockchain data such as blocks, transactions, receipts, logs, balances, gas fees, contract calls, and traces via RouteMesh.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@RouteMesh MCP Server show my RouteMesh usage for last week"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
@routemesh/mcp is a local stdio MCP server for querying blockchain data through RouteMesh.
Query multiple EVM chains from one MCP server.
Pull useful on-chain data quickly (blocks, txs, logs, balances, fees).
Use generic JSON-RPC when you need methods beyond built-in tools.
Reduce RPC endpoint management overhead with RouteMesh routing + failover.
Plug into Cursor as an on-demand command, not a background daemon.
Related MCP server: mcp-chainlist
"List chains that match base and show me their chain IDs."
"Get the latest block on BSC and summarize timestamp + tx count."
"Fetch receipt for tx 0x... on Ethereum and tell me if it succeeded."
"Get logs for this contract on Arbitrum between block X and Y."
"Estimate gas for calling this method on Base using these params."
"Run eth_getCode on chain 8453 for address 0x...."
"Show my RouteMesh usage for the last 7 days broken down by chain."
"What is my current RouteMesh balance and request count this month?"
"List my RouteMesh provider plans and the methods on each plan."
rpc_list_chains - discover and filter supported chains (via GET /chains on the API server)
rpc_call - generic JSON-RPC escape hatch
rpc_get_block - fetch by number/tag/hash
rpc_get_transaction - fetch transaction by hash
rpc_get_transaction_receipt - fetch receipt by hash
rpc_get_logs - query logs with block/topic filters
rpc_get_balance - native token balance for an address
rpc_call_contract - read-only eth_call
rpc_estimate_gas - gas estimation
rpc_get_fee_data - gas price + EIP-1559 hints
rpc_trace_transaction - trace/debug transaction best effort
get_usage - customer usage summary and balance from the API server (requires management token)
list_api_keys - list customer API keys (requires management token)
create_api_key - create a new API key with allowed domains and routing strategy (requires management token)
update_api_key - update an existing API key (requires management token)
provider_list_plans - list the provider's RPC plans (requires provider-linked management token)
provider_get_plan_methods - list the RPC methods of one of the provider's plans (requires provider-linked management token)
provider_upsert_plan_methods - insert/update the RPC method rows for a provider plan (requires provider-linked management token)
provider_get_node_status - sync status of one of the provider's nodes (requires provider-linked management token)
provider_upsert_node - create/update an HTTP node on a provider plan (requires provider-linked management token)
provider_upsert_ws_node - create/update a WebSocket node on a provider plan (requires provider-linked management token)
provider_set_node_status - enable/disable/delete a provider node (requires provider-linked management token)
When ROUTEMESH_MGMT_TOKEN is set, the server exposes customer-scoped tools that call the API server with the management token in the x-api-key header.
Create a management token in the RouteMesh dashboard (Mgmt Tokens page): click New Token, give it a label (e.g. mcp), and copy the secret — it is shown only once.
Customer management tokens are scoped automatically to the customer management routes (GET /usage, GET /api-keys, POST /api-keys, PUT /api-keys/:id). There is no route allowlist to configure — use a dedicated token for the MCP server so you can revoke it independently.
Provider tools additionally require the token's customer to be linked to a provider; they are then scoped automatically to /provider/* routes, and resources owned by another provider come back as 404.
get_usage — usage summary and balanceget_usage fetches customer usage data from the API server (GET /usage).
Parameter | Type | Description |
| RFC3339 timestamp | Window start (default: now minus 30 days) |
| RFC3339 timestamp | Window end (default: now UTC) |
| string array | Sections to return: |
| string | Flat grouped rows (overrides |
| string | Filter to one chain |
| positive int | Filter to one customer API key |
|
| Time series bucketing (default: |
| int (1–100) | Max rows for |
Examples:
Default (last 30 days, summary + balance): call get_usage with no parameters
Custom window with chain breakdown: from=2026-06-01T00:00:00Z, to=2026-06-18T00:00:00Z, include=["summary","by_chain"]
Hourly time series for one API key: include=["time_series"], granularity="hour", apiKeyId=42
Top methods on a chain: include=["top_methods"], chainId="ethereum", limit=10
Flat grouped rows: groupBy="api_key,chain", limit=50
list_api_keys — list API keyslist_api_keys calls GET /api-keys and returns an array of API key metadata (id, name, active, allowed_domains, routing_strategy, timestamps). The secret api_key value is never returned by this endpoint.
create_api_key — create a new API keycreate_api_key calls POST /api-keys to provision a new key. The request requires:
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string[] | yes | Array of allowed domains (valid URLs) |
|
| yes | Routing strategy for this key |
| string | no | Optional human-readable name |
Important: The response includes the secret api_key value, which is only shown once at creation. Store it securely — it cannot be retrieved again.
update_api_key — update an existing API keyupdate_api_key calls PUT /api-keys/:apiKey for partial updates:
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | yes | The API key string to update (from |
| string | no | Updated human-readable name |
| boolean | no | Activate or deactivate the key |
| string[] | no | Updated array of allowed domains |
At least one of name, active, or allowed_domains must be provided. The secret api_key value is never returned by this endpoint.
Provider tools mirror the provider-scoped API routes (/provider/*) and require a management token whose customer is linked to a provider. All writes are ownership-checked server-side: a plan_id / node that belongs to another provider is rejected (404), so tools can only affect the linked provider's own resources.
provider_list_plans — list the provider's plansCalls GET /provider/plans. Returns the provider's plans (id, name, price, quota, rate limits, billing fields) or an empty array.
provider_get_plan_methods — list a plan's RPC methodsCalls GET /provider/plans/:planId/methods.
Parameter | Type | Description |
| positive int | Plan owned by the provider (404 otherwise) |
Returns the plan's RPC method rows (method, vm, node_target_type, cost, rate limits, chain_id) or an empty array.
provider_upsert_plan_methods — insert/update a plan's RPC methodsCalls POST /provider/plans/:planId/methods.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| positive int | yes | Plan owned by the provider (404 otherwise) |
| array (1–500) | yes | RPC method rows to insert/update |
Each methods[] item supports: method, vm, node_target_type, cost, optional rate_limit, optional rate_limit_interval_sec, and optional chain_id (omit/null for all chains). Returns a plain-text success message on 201.
provider_get_node_status — node sync statusCalls GET /provider/nodes/:nodeId/status.
Parameter | Type | Description |
| positive int | Node owned by the provider (404 otherwise) |
Returns { node_id, in_sync, status } where status is ok or out_of_sync.
provider_upsert_node — create/update an HTTP nodeCalls PUT /provider/nodes. The node is screened server-side; mandatory screening failures are returned as 400. The URL must be a public http:// or https:// endpoint; loopback, private (10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16), and link-local (169.254/16) addresses are rejected client-side before forwarding.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| positive int | yes | Plan owned by the provider |
| URL | yes | HTTP(S) endpoint of the node |
| string | yes | VM type, e.g. |
| number (>= 0) | yes | Requests the node supports per interval |
| positive int | yes | Rate limit window in seconds |
| enum | no |
|
provider_upsert_ws_node — create/update a WebSocket nodeCalls PUT /provider/nodes/ws. The server dials the node and verifies it accepts eth_subscribe (newHeads) before persisting. The URL must be a public wss:// endpoint; loopback, private, and link-local addresses are rejected client-side before forwarding.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| positive int | yes | Plan owned by the provider |
| string | yes | Chain ID served, e.g. |
| string | yes |
|
provider_set_node_status — enable/disable/delete a nodeCalls POST /provider/nodes/status.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| positive int | yes | Node owned by the provider (404 otherwise) |
| enum | yes |
|
Node.js 20+
RouteMesh API key (sign up)
Customer management token (optional, for customer tools) — create one on the dashboard's Mgmt Tokens page; it is scoped automatically to the customer management routes
Install and build:
npm install
npm run buildSet API key for local dev:
cp .env.example .envRun local build:
ROUTEMESH_API_KEY=your_key_here node dist/index.jsRun in dev mode:
ROUTEMESH_API_KEY=your_key_here npm run devRun published package:
ROUTEMESH_API_KEY=your_key_here npx -y @routemesh/mcpAdd one of these to ~/.cursor/mcp.json.
Local build:
{
"mcpServers": {
"routemesh": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/PROJECT/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"ROUTEMESH_API_KEY": "replace-with-your-routemesh-key",
"ROUTEMESH_MGMT_TOKEN": "replace-with-your-customer-mgmt-token"
}
}
}
}Published package via npx:
{
"mcpServers": {
"routemesh": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@routemesh/mcp"],
"env": {
"ROUTEMESH_API_KEY": "replace-with-your-routemesh-key",
"ROUTEMESH_MGMT_TOKEN": "replace-with-your-customer-mgmt-token"
}
}
}
}npm run typecheck - static type checking
npm run test - run tests once
npm run test:watch - watch mode
npm run build - compile to dist/
npm run test
npm run build
npm version patch
npm publish --access publicThe server is read-only for on-chain RPC tools.
get_usage reads billing/usage data from the API server; it does not use Atlas.
Requests use ROUTEMESH_BASE_URL first, then ROUTEMESH_BACKUP_BASE_URL on retryable failures.
rpc_list_chains reads chain data from GET /chains on the API server (ROUTEMESH_API_SERVER_URL).
RouteMesh docs: https://routeme.sh/docs
Call any JSON-RPC method on a RouteMesh-supported chain. Useful as an escape hatch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that any JSON-RPC method can be called, but does not disclose possible state-changing effects, error behavior, response format, or risks of calling arbitrary methods.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the key usage hint (escape hatch) without wasting words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a generic raw-RPC tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is too brief to fully guide invocation. It lacks examples, method format expectations, param array semantics, and any mention of response handling, leaving important operational context missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with 'method' and 'params' essentially undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, such as how the method string should be formatted or how params should be passed, so it does not compensate for the schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a generic JSON-RPC method caller on RouteMesh-supported chains and frames it as an escape hatch, which distinguishes it from the specialized sibling RPC tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings by name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Useful as an escape hatch" implies the tool should be used when dedicated RPC wrappers are insufficient, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage guidance is present but only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a read-only contract call via eth_call using pre-encoded calldata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| gas | No | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| from | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) | |
| blockTag | No | latest | |
| gasPrice | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait: the call is read-only and uses eth_call. However, it does not mention what happens on revert, whether the response is raw ABI-encoded output, or how gas/from parameters may affect the call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information: read-only, contract call, eth_call, pre-encoded calldata. It is appropriately concise for a tool that relies on its schema for parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameter descriptions, a single sentence is insufficient. There is no guidance on return value format, error behavior, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like rpc_call. The description is too thin to fully support correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description should compensate. It adds some meaning to 'data' by calling it 'pre-encoded calldata', but it gives no explanation for 'to', 'from', 'gas', 'value', 'blockTag', or 'gasPrice'. Most parameter semantics are left to the agent to infer from names and patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Execute'), a specific resource ('contract call'), and the exact mechanism ('via eth_call using pre-encoded calldata'). It also clarifies that the call is read-only, which distinguishes it from transaction-sending tools and from the more generic sibling 'rpc_call'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for read-only contract calls with calldata already encoded, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools like rpc_call or rpc_get_balance, nor does it state when not to use it (e.g., for state-changing transactions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Estimate gas for a transaction request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) | |
| transaction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Estimate gas' signals a read-like call, but the description does not clarify whether this performs a node call, whether it mutates state, whether it requires the transaction to be signed, what happens with missing fields, or whether it needs a funded account. As an RPC estimate it likely does not mutate state, but the description leaves that implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence that leads with the verb and the object. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, though it could add a brief note about chainId or the transaction object without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with a nested transaction object and no output schema, the description is minimal but perhaps adequate for a straightforward RPC endpoint. Missing context: what the return value is (estimated gas amount), whether the transaction needs to be signed, and how this differs from rpc_get_fee_data or rpc_call. The schema clarifies the parameters but the description leaves behavioral and selection context thin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents chainId clearly and covers many transaction sub-fields, but the description itself just says 'transaction request.' The nested transaction object's semantics are mostly in the schema (field names and patterns), though the description adds little about the relationship between fields (e.g., gasPrice vs maxFeePerGas for legacy vs EIP-1559). With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by naming 'transaction request' but does not explain which fields are required for a valid estimate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description says 'Estimate gas for a transaction request' — a specific verb (estimate) applied to a resource (gas for a transaction). It distinguishes itself from read-only RPC tools (rpc_get_block, rpc_get_transaction) and from rpc_get_fee_data (which might naively sound similar), though it does not explicitly name siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the tool to use when an agent has a transaction request and needs a gas estimate. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer alternatives like rpc_estimate_gas vs rpc_get_fee_data, or prerequisites such as requiring chainId and a fully-formed transaction object. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch the native token balance for an address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) | |
| blockTag | No | latest |
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 conveys that the operation is a 'Fetch', but it does not state whether it is read-only in a formal sense, how blockTag affects the result, whether the return value is denominated in smallest units, or what errors may occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the operation. There is no wasted text, and the core purpose is immediately visible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits key contextual details such as what 'native token' means per chain, the meaning of blockTag, and the returned balance format. With no output schema and no annotations, such context would be expected for a complete definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with chainId documented in the schema and address partially constrained by a pattern. The description adds no explanation of the address parameter, chainId semantics, or blockTag behavior, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Fetch the native token balance for an address.' It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from general RPC tools like rpc_get_block or rpc_get_transaction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from rpc_call_contract or rpc_call, which could also be used to query balances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rpc_call_contract for ERC-20 balances or rpc_call for other RPC queries. The description implies the use case through its wording, but it offers no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch block data by block number/tag or by block hash on a given chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) | |
| blockTag | No | latest | |
| blockHash | No | ||
| includeTransactions | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch,' which hints at a read operation, but it does not explain what the returned block data contains, whether transactions are included by default, what block tags are supported, or how errors are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The access methods are front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, a one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine important calling details such as valid blockTag formats, the effect of includeTransactions, or what the returned block data looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by block number/tag or by block hash' adds useful meaning for blockTag and blockHash, but includeTransactions remains completely unexplained by both the schema and the description, and chainId is already documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('block data'), and the two access methods (block number/tag or block hash) on a chain. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools; the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer it from the sibling set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like rpc_get_transaction, rpc_get_logs, or rpc_get_balance. The description implies it is for block-level data, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch current gas price, max priority fee and a one-block fee history sample.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' communicates a read-only operation, and the expected data items are listed. However, it does not disclose units, return structure, error behavior, or any chain-specific limitations, leaving meaningful gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states the action and the full result set efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter RPC tool the description is adequate, but it lacks an output schema and does not explain the structure of the 'one-block fee history sample' or the units of the returned fee values. Error behavior and supported network constraints are also unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, chainId, is already documented with type, range, and an Ethereum mainnet example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies a distinct resource (fee data), then names the exact contents: current gas price, max priority fee, and a one-block fee history sample. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like rpc_estimate_gas or rpc_get_block.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rpc_estimate_gas or rpc_get_block. The description states what the tool returns but gives no conditions, exclusions, or comparison signals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query indexed logs/events with block range and topic filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topics | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) | |
| toBlock | No | latest | |
| fromBlock | No | latest |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return shape, default block-range behavior, pagination or limits, or how address filtering interacts with the query. This leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase contributes meaning. It is concise and readable, but the terseness also causes it to omit useful parameter and behavior details, so it stops short of full marks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry substantial context. Given five parameters, a non-trivial topics filter structure, and default values, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably predict filter encoding, supported address forms, or return value shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 20%, with only chainId described. The description maps 'block range' to fromBlock/toBlock and 'topic filters' to topics, but it does not explain address, the nested topic-array semantics, OR/AND behavior across topic positions, or defaults like fromBlock='latest'. It does not sufficiently compensate for the four undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('indexed logs/events'), and names the key filtering dimensions: block range and topics. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rpc_get_transaction_receipt or rpc_get_block, which target receipts or blocks rather than queryable logs/events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: any log/event lookup with block or topic filters. However, it does not explicitly compare it to rpc_get_transaction_receipt, which also exposes logs, nor does it state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a transaction by hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txHash | Yes | ||
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch' without noting whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether the transaction must be confirmed, or any error conditions (e.g., not found). The description adds no insight beyond the tool name, which is inadequate for a core RPC method.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it becomes under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—important operational details are omitted. A 4 would require adding at least a key behavioral note without bloating the text; here the brevity sacrifices utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two required parameters, the description is critically thin. An agent cannot know what fields the response will include, whether it returns a transaction object or a confirmation status, or how failures (e.g., unknown hash) are handled. With siblings like rpc_get_transaction_receipt, the lack of guidance on scope is a significant gap. This is far from complete for a practical RPC tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with chainId already documented in the schema. The description's 'by hash' implicitly indicates txHash is a transaction hash, but this is already evident from the parameter name and the pattern regex. No additional semantics are provided for txHash, such as format details, hexadecimal case sensitivity, or how it relates to chainId. Since coverage is low and the description does not compensate, the parameter explanation is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch a transaction by hash' clearly identifies the verb (fetch), resource (transaction), and key identifier (hash). It is specific enough to understand the core function, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like rpc_get_transaction_receipt or rpc_trace_transaction, which also operate on transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when a receipt or trace would be more appropriate, or any prerequisites like chain support. The only implicit hint is the 'by hash' phrase, which does not distinguish usage scenarios. This leaves the agent to infer from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a transaction receipt by hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txHash | Yes | ||
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Fetch a transaction receipt by hash' and does not disclose return format, not-found behavior, read-only guarantees, or the fact that a receipt may not exist until the transaction is mined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. For a simple two-parameter RPC tool, this is appropriately sized and immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain more than the basic operation. It omits what a receipt contains, when it becomes available, and how this tool differs from rpc_get_transaction, leaving the agent under-informed about the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The phrase 'by hash' adds some meaning to txHash—it identifies it as the transaction hash, which the schema's pattern alone does not explain. However, the description says nothing about chainId or why it is required, so parameter semantics remain only partially covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource—transaction receipt—and a specific lookup method (by hash), so an agent can tell it apart from rpc_get_transaction. It is direct and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of rpc_get_transaction, rpc_get_logs, or rpc_trace_transaction. There are no alternative conditions or exclusions; usage is only implied by the word 'receipt'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Discover supported chains from RouteMesh API server (GET /chains) and filter by chain ID or name query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| chainId | No | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the HTTP endpoint (GET /chains), implying a read-only discovery operation, and states filtering behavior. However, no annotations are present, and the description does not cover pagination, response shape, auth requirements, or rate-limit expectations, leaving some burden unmet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the endpoint, purpose, and filtering options with no wasted words. The core behavior appears before any secondary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list endpoint, the description covers the source, HTTP method, and the two main filter dimensions. Minor gaps remain around pagination semantics and return-format expectations, but they are not critical for selecting or invoking this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The phrase 'filter by chain ID or name query' adds meaning to the chainId and query parameters, which is useful given only 25% schema description coverage. However, limit and offset are not explained in the description; their names and defaults partially compensate, but the description only partially closes the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation: discover supported chains from the RouteMesh API server via GET /chains, with an explicit filtering capability. This distinguishes it from the sibling RPC tools that perform blockchain calls, blocks, transactions, and traces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: when an agent needs to discover or filter supported chains from RouteMesh. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the read/list intent is unambiguous relative to the other RPC tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Attempt transaction tracing using trace_transaction or debug_traceTransaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txHash | Yes | ||
| chainId | Yes | EVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet) | |
| traceMethod | No | trace_transaction | |
| allowFallback | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'attempt' and lists two methods. It does not explain fallback order, when debug_traceTransaction would be used, what the trace resembles, or whether node support affects availability.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the core operation. It repeats the title's 'transaction tracing', but it earns its place by naming the concrete RPC methods.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter RPC wrapper with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits output shape, fallback behavior, and failure semantics, so an agent cannot fully predict what will happen when invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description needed to compensate. It mentions the two trace RPC method names but does not define txHash, allowFallback, or the traceMethod/fallback interaction, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific operation, transaction tracing, and the two RPC methods it uses, which an agent can distinguish from sibling get_transaction/get_transaction_receipt tools. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when tracing is appropriate, when to prefer get_transaction or get_transaction_receipt, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., a supported RPC endpoint). The only hint is the word 'attempt', which implies potential failure but not a decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.1rpc_callrpc_call_contractrpc_estimate_gasrpc_get_balancerpc_get_blockrpc_get_fee_datarpc_get_logsrpc_get_transactionrpc_get_transaction_receiptrpc_list_chainsrpc_trace_transactionScored across 11 tools
Each tool targets a specific RPC operation (block, transaction, receipt, logs, balance, contract, gas, fee, trace), making them clearly distinct. The only minor overlap is between rpc_call and rpc_call_contract, but their descriptions clarify that rpc_call is a generic escape hatch while rpc_call_contract is specifically for eth_call with pre-encoded calldata.
All tools follow a consistent rpc_<verb>_<noun> pattern with snake_case throughout, such as rpc_get_block, rpc_estimate_gas, and rpc_list_chains. The lone rpc_call is a deliberate generic exception but still fits the rpc_ prefix convention.
11 tools is a well-scoped size for an RPC-focused server, covering the most common blockchain read operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool addresses a distinct need, and the count aligns with the server's apparent purpose as a multi-chain RPC gateway.
The set covers all essential RPC query operations: chain discovery, blocks, transactions, receipts, logs, balances, contract reads, gas estimation, fee data, and tracing. The inclusion of a generic rpc_call escape hatch ensures any missing method can still be invoked, so there are no significant coverage gaps.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Free catalog + 28 pay-per-call tools: LLM completion, EVM data, crypto utilities. No API key.
Manage your blockchain infrastructure across 80+ chains with your agents.
Blockchain data across 100+ chains: token prices, NFTs, transfers, simulation, traces, Solana DAS
Deploy and manage blockchain nodes across 70+ protocols, search docs, request testnet funds.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/routemesh/routemesh-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
