Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RouteMesh MCP Server

RouteMesh MCP Server

Official
by routemesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get transaction receipt

rpc_get_transaction_receipt

Fetch a transaction receipt by hash and chain ID to confirm execution status, logs, and gas used. Provide the EVM chain ID and transaction hash to get the receipt.

Instructions

Fetch a transaction receipt by hash.

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": {
      "chainId": "<chainId>",
      "txHash": "<txHash>"
    },
    "name": "rpc_get_transaction_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txHashYes
chainIdYesEVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools