Skip to main content
Glama

Robyn — Gasless Cross-Chain for AI Agents

by io.github.ox31461

Messaging v2 — resolve a Robyn name to its mailbox

robyn_message_mailbox_of

For a Robyn name or NULL handle the server must resolve it, so this reveals your intended recipient to the server — prefer robyn_message_directory when you have an address. Returns {address|handle, metaAddress, kemPub} (private-handle rows carry no address by design). Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressOrNameYes0x address, a NULL handle (e.g. alice.null), or label.robyn.id / .robynchain.eth / .rhood.eth

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / addressOrName / description
      Previous value: -"0x address or label.robyn.id / .robynchain.eth / .rhood.eth"New value: +"0x address, a NULL handle (e.g. alice.null), or label.robyn.id / .robynchain.eth / .rhood.eth"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a privacy implication (the server resolves the name and reveals the intended recipient), states the return object shape, notes that private-handle rows omit address, and declares 'Read-only'. This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though error cases and rate limits are not covered.

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?

Two sentences with high information density. The critical selection guidance is front-loaded, followed by return format and read-only note. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given a single well-described parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the return object shape and the sibling alternative. The privacy warning adds important context. There is no mention of error behavior, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, listing accepted formats (0x address, NULL handle, domain variants). The description adds little beyond overlapping 'Robyn name or NULL handle' phrasing. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the meaning.

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 the specific verb 'resolve' and names the resource 'a Robyn name to its mailbox'. It also distinguishes from sibling robyn_message_directory by instructing to prefer that tool when an address is available. The return shape is stated, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative robyn_message_directory and gives a concrete selection criterion: use this tool for a Robyn name or NULL handle, prefer directory when an address is available. This is direct when/when-not guidance.

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