Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RouteMesh MCP Server

RouteMesh MCP Server

Official
by routemesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List RouteMesh chains

rpc_list_chains

List supported blockchain chains from RouteMesh, filtering by chain ID or name query to find matching networks.

Instructions

Discover supported chains from RouteMesh API server (GET /chains) and filter by chain ID or name query.

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": "rpc_list_chains"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNo
offsetNo
chainIdNoEVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools