Skip to main content
Glama

XRPLHub — XRPLScore & XRPL actions

by io.github.Dcroyalty

check_mpt_risk

Get the risk view of one XLS-33 Multi-Purpose Token issuance before touching it: what the issuer CAN DO to a holder (clawback, freeze, require-auth, whether it's transferable at all) plus the issuer's XRPLScore. Free. For the full issuer picture — account age, xrp-ledger.toml-verified domain, credentials held, Bithomp cross-check — GET /api/x402/usdc/mpt/{id} pays $0.01 USDC on Base via x402. Every response states its source and returns 'unknown', never 'does not exist', when an issuance isn't found. Params: issuance_id (48-hex MPTokenIssuanceID, required). No signup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issuance_idYesThe MPTokenIssuanceID — 48 hexadecimal characters (XLS-33, 192-bit)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key operational traits: the tool is free, requires no signup, every response states its source, and unmatched issuances return 'unknown' rather than 'does not exist'. The phrase 'Get the risk view' also conveys a read-only intent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than the minimum but each sentence earns its place: risk semantics, pricing, an explicit alternative, edge-case behavior, and the required parameter. The 'Params:' sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the description remains front-loaded with purpose and well organized.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Though there is no output schema, the description conveys the essential response content: issuer powers, XRPLScore, source attribution, and the not-found behavior. With one fully documented required parameter and no annotations, the description gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool 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%, so the input schema already fully documents issuance_id as a required 48-hex MPTokenIssuanceID. The description repeats this information but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get the risk view') with a precise resource ('one XLS-33 Multi-Purpose Token issuance') and enumerates concrete risk dimensions (clawback, freeze, require-auth, transferability) plus the issuer's XRPLScore. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_xrpl_score, check_domain_eligibility, and get_issuer_mpts.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly frames when to use this tool ('before touching it') and directly names an alternative for a fuller picture, including the cost and endpoint. This gives an agent actionable routing guidance without ambiguity.

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