Skip to main content
Glama

Hedera Toolbox

by com.hederatoolbox.api

hcs_write_record

Destructive

Write a tamper-evident record to any open HCS topic on Hedera. Use this to write entries to your agent's own topic for continuity, memory, or history. topic_id is required — pass your agent topic ID. Returns record ID and tx proof. 0.1 HBAR.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe compliance data to record (any JSON object)
api_keyYesYour HederaIntel API key
topic_idYesHCS topic ID to write the record to. Must be an open topic you own or have access to.
entity_idYesID of the entity this record relates to
record_typeYesType of compliance record (e.g. transaction, approval, audit_event)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context: tamper-evidence, return of record ID and tx proof, and the 0.1 HBAR cost. It does not contradict annotations and gives extra behavioral insight.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then a required parameter note, return values, and cost. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description appropriately mentions return values (record ID and tx proof) and the cost. It could elaborate on immutable/permanent effects or error cases, but the schema covers access requirements, making it sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting topic_id as required and suggesting to 'pass your agent topic ID', and by implying the data field contains compliance data, slightly beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Write a tamper-evident record to any open HCS topic on Hedera.' It clearly distinguishes this write tool from read/verify siblings like hcs_query and hcs_verify_record.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use this to write entries to your agent's own topic for continuity, memory, or history.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient among sibling tools.

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

All Hedera Toolbox 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., contract read vs. contract call vs. contract analyze; hcs monitor vs. hcs query vs. hcs understand). Even within closely related groups, descriptions clearly differentiate the specific purpose, so an agent is unlikely to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a domain_action pattern (e.g., contract_analyze, token_monitor, hcs_verify_record), but some are verb_noun (get_terms, confirm_terms) and a few are noun_noun (account_info, token_price, fixatum_score). While not perfectly uniform, the prefixes make the intended domain clear and the overall structure is readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 25 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical MCP scope. While each tool serves a specific niche across multiple Hedera domains (contracts, HCS, tokens, identity, governance, Fixatum), the sheer number could increase selection complexity, but it remains within the borderline range rather than being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of read/analyze operations across major Hedera areas, plus essential write/verification capabilities (hcs_write_record, hcs_verify_record) and an onboarding flow (get_terms, confirm_terms). Minor gaps exist, such as no token transfer history or unregister/update for Fixatum, but the core analytical purpose is well covered.

Resources