Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

powersun-tron-mcp

by io.github.Hovsteder
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check Pool Permissions

check_pool_permissions

Verify that the platform has the required active permissions on your pool address. Required: DelegateResource (to sell energy), UnDelegateResource (to reclaim). Optional: VoteWitness (to vote for SRs and earn rewards). Run this after granting permissions to confirm the platform can operate your pool. Requires API key.

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": "check_pool_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
poolAddressNoPool address to check. If omitted, uses your first registered pool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / poolAddress / maxLength
      Added value: +34
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates the required (DelegateResource, UnDelegateResource) and optional (VoteWitness) permissions, explains what each enables, and discloses the API-key auth requirement. It stops short of saying the call is read-only and non-mutating in explicit terms, and never indicates what a failed check looks like.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, required permissions, optional permission, sequencing advice, and auth prerequisite. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or restated for filler.

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 one-optional-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the permission requirements and auth prerequisite well. The remaining gap is the return value — it doesn't describe whether the result is a boolean, a per-permission breakdown, or what missing permissions are reported as, which matters since no output schema exists.

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%, and the poolAddress parameter already documents the 'omit to use your first registered pool' fallback, so the description adds no parameter meaning. That places it at the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Verify that the platform has the required active permissions on your pool address.' The verb 'verify/check' separates it from mutation-oriented siblings such as build_permission_transaction and broadcast_signed_permission_tx, and 'active permissions' scopes exactly what is being confirmed.

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?

Gives clear situational guidance: 'Run this after granting permissions to confirm the platform can operate your pool,' which places the call in the grant-then-verify workflow. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or name the sibling that grants the permissions in the first place, so routing still needs a small inference.

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

All powersun-tron-mcp toolsInspect
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