Provides access to Mina blockchain data through a GraphQL Archive Node API, enabling queries for blockchain events, actions, and network state information.
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., "@Mina Archive Node query recent events for account B62q..."
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.
This project implements a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides access to the Mina blockchain data through a standardized interface. The server allows clients to query events and actions from the Mina blockchain using the MCP protocol.
The MCP server acts as a bridge between AI applications and the Mina blockchain data. It exposes tools that allow clients to:
Query events with optional filters
Query actions with optional filters
Get network state information
Related MCP server: Mina MCP Server
To install the MCP to Claude via Smithery:
npx -y @smithery/cli install mcp-mina-archive-node --client claudeTo manually install to Claude:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-graphql": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["mcp-mina-archive-node"]
}
}
}query-events: Query events with optional filters
query-actions: Query actions with optional filters
get-network-state: Get the current state of the Mina network
MIT
Get the current state of the Mina network
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 network state but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool, making it easy for an agent 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage context, which are important even for simple tools. This meets the minimum viable threshold but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, earning a high baseline score.
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 ('Get') and resource ('current state of the Mina network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query-actions' or 'query-events', which might also retrieve network-related information, preventing 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query-actions' or 'query-events'. The description implies it's for retrieving the current network state, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query actions from the Mina blockchain with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| tokenId | No | Token ID to filter transactions | |
| status | No | Transaction status to filter | |
| to | No | Block height to filter transactions | |
| from | No | Block height to filter transactions | |
| fromActionState | No | Action state to filter transactions | |
| endActionState | No | Action state to filter transactions |
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 this is a query operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.
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 gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a query tool and front-loads the essential information.
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?
For a query tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'actions' are in the Mina blockchain context, what the return format looks like, or how to interpret results. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output context.
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?
Schema description coverage is high at 86%, providing good documentation for most parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filters' but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.
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 ('query actions') and resource ('from the Mina blockchain'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings 'get-network-state' and 'query-events', which likely also query blockchain data but for different resources.
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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or what specific scenarios it addresses. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query events from the Mina blockchain with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| tokenId | No | Token ID to filter transactions | |
| status | No | Transaction status to filter | |
| to | No | Block height to filter transactions | |
| from | No | Block height to filter transactions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'query events' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this is a safe read, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('query events from the Mina blockchain') and adds a useful qualifier ('with optional filters'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately 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 complexity of a blockchain query tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or return format, and while schema coverage is high, the lack of output details and usage context leaves gaps for an AI agent to effectively use this tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filters', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context like filter combinations or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 'query' and resource 'events from the Mina blockchain', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'query-actions' or 'get-network-state', which likely query different types of blockchain data, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query-actions' or 'get-network-state'. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context vague.
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.
get-network-statequery-actionsquery-eventsEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get-network-state retrieves the current network state, query-actions handles blockchain actions with filters, and query-events handles blockchain events with filters. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens: get-network-state, query-actions, and query-events. The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.
With only 3 tools, the count feels thin for an archive node that might need more comprehensive blockchain interaction capabilities. While the tools cover basic queries and network state, it's borderline minimal for the apparent scope.
The tools provide core querying functions (network state, actions, events), but there are notable gaps such as missing data submission tools (e.g., for transactions or smart contracts) and advanced analytical operations. This could limit agent workflows in a blockchain context.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MEOK ABCI Bridge MCP — read-only Tendermint / Cosmos blockchain query for agents. Built-in registry
Query cryptocurrency on-chain data, OHLCV prices, market data, and Research & QuickTake insights.
Read-only THORChain swap quotes, liquidity pools, and network status.
Query real-time blockchain token data across EVM and Solana networks. Access token balances, transfers, prices, holders, NFT ownership, DEX swaps, and liquidity pools. Supports Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BSC, Polygon, Solana, and more.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/boray/mcp-mina-archive-node'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
