Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Somnia MCP Server

Somnia MCP Server

by vastavikadi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

getNFTtokensByAddress

Read-only

Retrieve NFT tokens held by a wallet address on the Somnia blockchain.

Instructions

Lists tokens for an NFT contract

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": {
      "chainName": "<chainName>",
      "address": "<address>",
      "authToken": "<authToken>"
    },
    "name": "getNFTtokensByAddress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesAddress to fetch NFT tokens for
authTokenYes
chainNameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be read-only. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, authentication requirements, or return format, and it neither contradicts nor enriches beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified and lacks structure. While concise, it does not provide enough substance to be fully effective.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is too brief. It omits key details like the constrained chainName value, the purpose of authToken, and what the returned tokens look like, leaving significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with authToken and chainName undocumented. The description only clarifies that 'address' refers to an NFT contract, but does nothing to explain the other two parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists tokens for an NFT contract'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like getNFTtokensByIdForAddress, which is closely related.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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