The Ethereum RPC MCP Server enables interaction with the Ethereum blockchain through standardized RPC methods via the Model Context Protocol. With this server, you can:
Retrieve contract code at specific addresses (eth_getCode)
Check current gas price in wei (eth_gasPrice)
Query account balances (eth_getBalance)
Execute contract calls without creating transactions (eth_call)
Retrieve event logs matching specific filter criteria (eth_getLogs)
Send transactions to the Ethereum network (eth_sendTransaction)
Provides tools for interacting with the Ethereum blockchain through JSON-RPC methods, including retrieving code from addresses, checking account balances, getting gas prices, executing contract calls, retrieving logs, and sending transactions.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Ethereum RPC MCP Server what's the current gas price on Ethereum?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for interacting with Ethereum blockchain.
This MCP server provides tools to query Ethereum blockchain data through standard JSON-RPC methods. It enables AI assistants and applications to interact with the Ethereum blockchain through a standardized protocol.
Related MCP server: Geth MCP Proxy
This MCP server provides three key Ethereum RPC methods as tools:
eth_getCode: Retrieve the code at a specific Ethereum address
eth_gasPrice: Get the current gas price on the Ethereum network
eth_getBalance: Check the balance of an Ethereum account
Note: More are coming
To add this MCP to Cursor:
First, clone this repository:
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/eth-mpc.gitGo to Cursor settings → MCP → Add new MCP server
Enter a name (e.g., "eth-mcp")
Select "command" as the type
Input the full path to the script:
node /path/to/eth-mpc/index.js
Click "Add" to enable the server
Once added, the Ethereum RPC tools will be available to use within Cursor.
The server uses stdio transport, making it compatible with MCP clients like Claude Desktop, Cursor, and others.
The MCP Inspector is a development tool for testing and debugging MCP servers. It provides an interactive interface to test your MCP server's functionality without needing a full AI client.
To test your Ethereum RPC MCP server with the Inspector:
To run the Inspector:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspectorInput the command and path
The Inspector will connect to your running MCP server and display available tools.
The Inspector allows you to:
View available tools and their descriptions
Test each tool with different parameters
See the responses in a structured format
Debug any issues with your MCP server implementation
For example, to test the eth_getBalance tool:
Select the tool in the Inspector interface
Enter a valid Ethereum address (e.g., 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045 - Vitalik's address)
Use the default block parameter (latest)
Submit the request and view the response
This MCP server can be integrated with any MCP-compatible client, including:
Claude Desktop
Claude Code
Cursor (instructions above)
Cline
Other MCP-compatible applications
When integrated, the client application can use the tools provided by this server to query Ethereum blockchain data directly.
Model Context Protocol (MCP) is an open standard that allows AI models to interact with various tools and services. It provides a standardized way for developers to expose APIs, data sources, and functionality to AI assistants.
MCP servers like this one form part of an ecosystem that allows AI assistants to perform complex tasks across multiple services without requiring custom integration for each service.
📚 Official Documentation: Model Context Protocol Overview
MIT
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
Retrieves the current gas price in wei
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a retrieval operation, which implies it's read-only and non-destructive. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format, which would enhance transparency for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values or behavioral nuances. For a retrieval tool with no structured output information, it could benefit from specifying the response format to be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no compensation is needed for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('current gas price in wei'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like eth_getBalance (which retrieves account balance) and eth_getCode (which retrieves contract code). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'current gas price,' suggesting it should be used when needing real-time gas price information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieves the balance of a given Ethereum address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The Ethereum address to check balance | |
| blockParameter | No | Block parameter (default: "latest") | latest |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('retrieves') but fails to add context such as read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no behavioral context. It adequately states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, or return values, which are crucial for effective agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents the parameters (address and blockParameter). The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('balance of a given Ethereum address'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eth_gasPrice or eth_getCode, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 or any contextual prerequisites. It lacks explicit usage scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieves the code at a given Ethereum address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The Ethereum address to get code from | |
| blockParameter | No | Block parameter (default: "latest") | latest |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves code but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid address), or what 'code' entails (e.g., bytecode, source code). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with blockchain data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Ethereum interactions and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., hex-encoded bytecode), error handling, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (address and blockParameter). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining why blockParameter matters or address format nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieves') and resource ('code at a given Ethereum address'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like eth_getBalance (which retrieves balance rather than code), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like eth_getBalance or eth_gasPrice. It lacks context about typical use cases (e.g., verifying contract deployment, analyzing smart contracts) or prerequisites, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0eth_gasPriceeth_getBalanceeth_getCodeEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: eth_gasPrice retrieves network gas price, eth_getBalance retrieves account balance, and eth_getCode retrieves contract code. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent eth_verbNoun pattern (eth_gasPrice, eth_getBalance, eth_getCode), using snake_case and the same prefix. This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and agent usability without any deviations.
With only 3 tools, this server feels thin for an Ethereum RPC server, as it lacks core operations like sending transactions, querying blocks, or checking transaction status. The count is too low for the apparent scope of Ethereum interaction, limiting functionality.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for an Ethereum RPC domain. It includes only read-only queries (gas price, balance, code) but omits essential operations such as eth_sendTransaction, eth_getTransactionByHash, or eth_blockNumber, creating significant gaps that will cause agent failures in typical workflows.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Safety-first EVM and Bitcoin RPC tools for balances, contracts, blocks, and transactions
Provide AI agents and automation tools with contextual access to blockchain data including balance…
Read-only on-chain intelligence for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status.
Read-only on-chain intelligence for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0xKoda/eth-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server