Skip to main content
Glama

Blockstream Info

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Block

block
Read-onlyIdempotent

Block by 64-char hex hash or by height.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNo
hash_or_heightYesBlock hash (hex) or numeric height as string.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoBlock hash
bitsNoDifficulty bits
sizeNoBlock size in bytes
nonceNoBlock nonce
heightNoBlock height
weightNoBlock weight
versionNoBlock version
tx_countNoTransaction count
timestampNoBlock timestamp (unix)
difficultyNoDifficulty
mediantimeNoMedian block time
merkle_rootNoMerkle root hash
previousblockhashNoPrevious block hash

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "hash_or_height": "000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f"
+  },
+  {
+    "hash_or_height": "840000",
+    "network": "mainnet"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "bits": {
+      "description": "Difficulty bits",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "difficulty": {
+      "description": "Difficulty",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "height": {
+      "description": "Block height",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Block hash",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mediantime": {
+      "description": "Median block time",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "merkle_root": {
+      "description": "Merkle root hash",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "nonce": {
+      "description": "Block nonce",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "previousblockhash": {
+      "description": "Previous block hash",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "size": {
+      "description": "Block size in bytes",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "timestamp": {
+      "description": "Block timestamp (unix)",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "tx_count": {
+      "description": "Transaction count",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "version": {
+      "description": "Block version",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "weight": {
+      "description": "Block weight",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds that the tool accepts either a hash or height as input, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as the structure of the returned block data or any side effects.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful. However, it might be too terse for some users, but it efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits mention of the optional 'network' parameter and does not provide enough context for a user to know when the tool is appropriate. It is adequate for a simple tool but lacks completeness.

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 description clarifies the format of 'hash_or_height' beyond the schema (64-character hex), adding a small amount of meaning. The 'network' parameter is not mentioned. Schema description coverage is 50%, and the tool description partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a block by either a 64-character hex hash or by height. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples further clarify. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that may also return block data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description is purely a statement of what it does.

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

All Blockstream Info toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set includes multiple near-identical tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and several overlapping entity/profile tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) that make it hard for an agent to choose the right one. The Bitcoin-specific tools are isolated and don't integrate well with the rest, creating two separate domains.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, fee_estimates), some use underscores (polymarket_edges), and others are standalone verbs (remember, recall, forget). No consistent pattern is followed across the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, the server is overstuffed for its stated purpose ('Blockstream Info'). The Bitcoin blockchain tools are only 7, while the rest are a sprawling external data platform (Pipeworx) with many redundant tools, making the number feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For a Bitcoin-oriented server, the blockchain tools cover basic operations (address, block, transaction, fee_estimates) but miss essentials like UTXO queries or block details. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx tools dominate and are overcomplete for a server that should be lightweight. The mismatch leaves the Bitcoin part incomplete.

Resources