Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
XGR MCP Gateway

XGR MCP Gateway

Official
by xgr-network
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Search transactions

search_transactions

Find XGR blockchain transactions using filters like address, hash, value, block range, validity, and execution status.

Instructions

Read-only chain-wide Explorer DB transaction search. Use for general transaction, native XGR value, from/to address, hash, input, session id, validity/execution, and block/time-range questions; do not sample XDaLa sessions for chain-wide transaction questions.

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": "search_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNo
toNo
txHashNo
valueGtWeiNo
valueEqWeiNo
valueLtWeiNo
hasValueNo
hasInputNo
contractCreationNo
sessionIdNo
validNo
executedNo
windowHoursNo
fromBlockNo
toBlockNo
pageNo
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description states 'Read-only,' implying no side effects. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, potential performance implications, or rate limits. Partial coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Efficient but could benefit from structured listing of parameter groups.

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?

With 17 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description should cover return values and parameter behavior. It omits pagination, value filters, and output format, leaving gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions categories like 'from/to address, hash, input, session id, validity/execution, block/time-range' but ignores parameters for value filters, hasValue, contractCreation, pagination. Incomplete guidance for a tool with 17 parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it's a 'Read-only chain-wide Explorer DB transaction search' and lists specific query types (transactions, addresses, hash, input, session id, etc.). It differentiates from siblings by scope but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for general transaction... questions' and warns 'do not sample XDaLa sessions for chain-wide transaction questions.' Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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