Realtap

Rules and issuer of a programmable token (CIP-113)

get_programmable_token

Read-onlyIdempotent

What the issuer of a programmable token (Cardano's CIP-113 standard, live since October 2026) can do with it, read from the chain: freeze it in any wallet, take it back without the holder's signature, require approved holders, pause or shut it down, change the rules; who the issuer is (the administrator and the operators with their rights), the block list, supply and holders under the standard's contract, the latest compliance events, and which of this is read from the chain and which can not be read (a token whose issuer wrote their own scripts says so). Without token it lists every registered programmable token in one line each. The answer says how far our index reaches (coverage): lists and balances are complete only when it says so.

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": "get_programmable_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	No	Policy id (56 hex) or token unit (policy id + asset name in hex). Leave out to list every registered programmable token.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: it flags that some fields may not be readable when an issuer used custom scripts, and that completeness depends on an index `coverage` field. That is useful disclosure about data reliability that the annotations cannot carry. It stops short of describing error behavior or how stale the index can be.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded, but it is delivered as one very long run-on sentence with semicolon-separated clause piles ('...the block list, supply and holders under the standard's contract, the latest compliance events, and which of this is read...'). It is dense rather than wasted, but it trades readability for compression.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the shape of the response (rules, issuer/operators, block list, supply, holders, events) and its coverage caveat. An agent knows what it will get and when the answer is partial, though not the exact field names.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter, fully documented with pattern and intent), so baseline 3 applies. The description's statement about omitting `token` restates the schema's own 'Leave out to list every registered programmable token' rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb-plus-resource ('read from the chain' the issuer rules and data of a CIP-113 programmable token) and enumerates what is returned: issuer rights, block list, supply, holders, compliance events. It is clear, but it does not name the overlapping siblings (get_programmable_balances for holders, list_programmable_events for compliance events), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the two modes via the optional `token` argument ('Without `token` it lists every registered programmable token in one line each'), which is real usage guidance. However it gives no when-not conditions and never routes the agent to get_programmable_balances / list_programmable_events / check_programmable_transfer, which cover parts of this same data.

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

All Realtap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?