Skip to main content
Glama
szhygulin

vaultpilot-mcp

by szhygulin
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions(1)
TypeScript
Hybrid

rescan_ltc_account

Read-onlyIdempotent

Refresh cached on-chain transaction counts for all Litecoin addresses under a Ledger account by re-querying the indexer, used after funds received or indexer staleness; returns extend or retry signals.

Instructions

READ-ONLY — refresh the cached on-chain txCount for every paired Litecoin address under one Ledger account by re-querying the indexer. Pure indexer-side: NO Ledger / USB interaction. Use this after the user has received funds (so a previously-empty cached address now has history) or when the indexer was stale at the original pair_ledger_ltc scan time. Updates the persisted cache, so subsequent get_ltc_balance reflects the refresh without another rescan. Three-state extend signal: needsExtend: true (trailing buffer address on any cached chain has on-chain history — re-run pair_ledger_ltc to extend the walked window); unverifiedChains: [...] (tail probe REJECTED for that chain — indeterminate, usually a transient indexer hiccup, re-run rescan_ltc_account rather than re-pairing); neither field present → all walked chains confirmed healthy. Indexer fan-out is bounded to LITECOIN_INDEXER_PARALLELISM concurrent requests (default 8) to stay under litecoinspace.org's free-tier rate limits; transient 429s and network errors are retried once internally.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountIndexYesLedger Litecoin account slot to rescan. Must already be paired (call `pair_ledger_ltc` first). Re-queries the indexer for the live `txCount` of every cached address under this account and updates the persisted cache — useful after the user has received funds or the indexer was stale at original scan time. Pure indexer-side: no Ledger / USB interaction. Returns: `needsExtend: true` when the trailing empty address on any cached chain now has history (re-pair to extend the walked window); `unverifiedChains: [...]` when the tail probe ITSELF rejected (transient indexer hiccup, status indeterminate — re-run `rescan_ltc_account` rather than re-pairing).

Tool Definition Quality

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing indexer-side operation, parallel request bounds, retry behavior, and the three-state extend signal. It does not contradict any annotations; in fact, it reinforces them.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that is well-organized, starting with the purpose. It is dense but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly shorter, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output expectations (three-state signal). It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 single parameter 'accountIndex' has a schema description that already explains its usage and requirements. The tool description adds context about the three-state signal, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: refresh cached on-chain txCount for Litecoin addresses under a Ledger account. It specifies it is read-only and involves no USB interaction. It distinguishes from siblings like rescan_btc_account by focusing on Litecoin.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use: after receiving funds or when the indexer was stale. It also explains the three-state extend signal and actions to take for each state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/szhygulin/vaultpilot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server