Skip to main content
Glama

Robyn — Gasless Cross-Chain for AI Agents

by io.github.ox31461

Sonar (private messenger) — status, suite and parameters

robyn_message_info

Sonar — PRIVATE · SEALED · POST-QUANTUM MESSENGER (broadcast to everyone, understood by one, remembered by none). Hybrid ML-KEM-768+X25519 encryption, a one-time stealth handle per message, fixed-size ciphertexts, 60 s release grid. The server stores only (ephemeralPubKey, viewTag, ct) — no sender, no recipient, no IP. Returns mode, ciphertext sizes, release grid, cover-row rate and the honest anonymity accounting (kContribution is 0: rotating handles give unlinkability, not extra participants). Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', clarifying no side effects. It also details server storage and privacy properties, making the tool's behavior fully transparent. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, which it meets well.

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 description is somewhat verbose, with marketing-like phrases such as 'PRIVATE · SEALED · POST-QUANTUM MESSENGER' and repeated concepts. While it includes useful details, it could be more concise. The structure is logical but not tightly packed.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return information. It lists the key returned items (mode, ciphertext sizes, release grid, cover-row rate, anonymity accounting) and explains the system, but does not specify data types or formats. It is fairly complete for a tool of this nature.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline for high coverage is 3. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to return status, suite, and parameters of the Sonar private messenger, including mode, ciphertext sizes, release grid, and anonymity accounting. It distinguishes itself from sibling message-related tools (publish, receive) by focusing on informational retrieval.

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 implies usage for querying messenger configuration or status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide concrete use cases. The 'info' suffix in the name helps, but the description lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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

All Robyn — Gasless Cross-Chain for AI Agents 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as robyn_quote, robyn_prepare, robyn_settle, robyn_cross_chain, robyn_plan, robyn_preflight, and robyn_preflight_full, all involving routing or quoting. Although descriptions are detailed, the high number of subtly different tools makes selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent <prefix>_<verb/noun> pattern, with robyn_ and null_ as clear category prefixes. Verbs like prepare, submit, verify and nouns like quote, plan, mesh are highly predictable throughout.

Tool Count2/5

With 70 tools, the count far exceeds the 25+ heavy threshold. While the service scope is broad (payments, messaging, netting, Plus, yield, etc.), many tools could be merged or tiered, making the set feel overly large and burdensome for an agent.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle from quoting, planning, submitting, verifying, auditing to messaging, custody, yield, and mandates, plus sandbox, lint, and recipes. A few advanced operations like cancellation or revocation are missing, but no critical gaps remain.

Resources