Skip to main content
Glama

Robyn — Gasless Cross-Chain for AI Agents

by io.github.ox31461

Check a transfer will succeed BEFORE spending anything

robyn_preflight

Run this before robyn_prepare/robyn_submit. Returns decision GO or NO_GO plus typed blockers (each with a fix) and warnings. It catches, for free, the failures that otherwise cost gas: a fixed corridor fee that would consume the whole amount so nothing arrives, a recipient in the wrong address family, a corridor that can price but not settle, and a transfer above the instant lane's capacity that would silently pay a dearer bridge. Read-only — signs nothing, moves nothing. Pass fromAddress so membership (free micro-transfers) is recognised.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesamount in fromToken base units (e.g. "5000000" = 5 USDC)
toChainYesdestination chain id or non-EVM name
toTokenNo
fromChainYessource chain id, or "solana"/"stellar"/"tron"/"bitcoin"
fromTokenNosymbol or address; omit for the chain default
toAddressNorecipient — validated against the destination chain family
fromAddressNosender — determines membership and therefore fee tier

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — signs nothing, moves nothing,' clearly setting safety expectations. It also lists the exact failure modes it detects (fee consumption, address family, settle capability, lane capacity), providing a detailed behavioral model beyond what annotations would offer.

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 three sentences, starts with actionable direction, then explains the return type and key failure modes, and ends with a critical safety trait. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, workflow position, output shape (GO/NO_GO with blockers and warnings), specific failure modes, and safety behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly across its seven parameters.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description adds a usage note about fromAddress for 'free micro-transfers,' but this overlaps with the schema's existing 'membership and fee tier' description. Overall, the description adds only marginal parameter-level value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a preflight check that returns GO/NO_GO with blockers and warnings, and explicitly names robyn_prepare/robyn_submit to distinguish its role in the workflow. It enumerates specific failure modes it catches, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated from siblings.

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?

The opening sentence 'Run this before robyn_prepare/robyn_submit' gives explicit sequencing guidance. The description further explains the value (catches costly failures for free) and offers a parameter-specific tip about fromAddress for membership recognition, which helps the agent decide when and how to use it.

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