Skip to main content
Glama

XRPLHub — XRPLScore & XRPL actions

by io.github.Dcroyalty

build_xrpl_transaction

Get a ready-to-sign transaction JSON for any of 35 XRPL actions — no XRPL coding. Returns the exact txjson plus a safety tier; the wallet owner signs it in their own wallet (this never signs for anyone). Call list_xrpl_services first for all 35 ids and every parameter with examples. Params: product_id (required — e.g. checkcreate, escrow, trustline, nftmint, dexorder, multisig), wallet_address (r... signer, required), params (object, per-service). Free, no signup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoPer-service parameters. Call list_xrpl_services for types + examples for every field. Required fields by id — multisig: signers, quorum | regkey: regularKey | depositauth: (no params) | desttag: (no params) | lockdown: (no params) | issuerdecl: (no params) | issuercfg: (no params) | tokenfee: transferFee | trustline: issuer, currency | trustsend: issuer, currency | rippling: (no params) | mptissue: (no params) | mptsend: destination, mptIssuanceId, amount | globalfreeze: (no params) | freezeline: holder, currency | dexorder: takerGetsValue, takerPaysValue | dextrade: takerGetsValue, takerPaysValue | smartswap: takerGetsValue, takerPaysValue | ammlaunch: assetValue, asset2Value | ammentry: assetValue, asset2Value | paychannel: destination, amount, publicKey | tickets: (no params) | nftmint: uri | nftburn: nftokenId | nftoffer: nftokenId, amount | checkcreate: destination, amount | checkcash: checkId, amount | checkcancel: checkId | desttagreq: (no params) | escrow: destination, amount, finishAfter | identity: data | did: uri | compliance: (no params) | credentialissue: subject, credentialType | permdomain: credentialType
product_idYesWhich XRPL action to build. Call list_xrpl_services for the full catalogue with each id's label, tier and parameters.
wallet_addressYesXRPL classic address (r...) of the account that will sign the transaction

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it addresses the most important risk: 'this never signs for anyone' and the wallet owner signs in their own wallet. It also reveals the return includes a safety tier. It does not explain what the safety tier means or what happens on invalid input, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and output, then covers the critical safety behavior, the prerequisite call, and the parameter shape without wasted words. It is dense but every clause earns its place for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining the return type (exact txjson plus safety tier) and directs the user to list_xrpl_services for per-service details. It does not define the safety tier or show a txjson example, but for a builder tool the prerequisite and parameter guidance are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, including detailed per-service required parameters, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description restates the three parameters and gives a few product_id examples, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema, which places it at the baseline.

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 a specific action: it returns a ready-to-sign transaction JSON for any of 35 XRPL actions, with a concrete output (txjson plus safety tier). It is less explicit about how this relates to the sibling issue_score_credential, since the enum includes credentialissue, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from all siblings.

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?

The description gives a clear context for use—building a signable transaction without XRPL coding—and an explicit prerequisite: call list_xrpl_services first for the full catalogue and parameter examples. It does not state when not to use this tool or how to route around overlapping tools like issue_score_credential, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All XRPLHub — XRPLScore & XRPL actions 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools generally split cleanly by resource: scores, credentials, MPTs, transactions, and community fund. The three MPT-related tools and the score-lookup vs score-credential pair could briefly overlap in purpose, but their descriptions are detailed enough to resolve the ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with clear verbs such as check, get, list, search, build, submit, verify, donate, and issue. There is no mixing of naming styles or vague generic verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Thirteen tools is well-scoped for a server covering XRPL scores, credentials, MPTs, transaction building, and community fund actions. The 35 supported transaction types are sensibly collapsed behind list and build tools rather than exploding into dozens of endpoints.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: score lookup, credential verification, MPT risk and search, transaction building, and community fund participation. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone grant-status lookup or explicit score-credential verification endpoint, but these are workable around.

Resources