Skip to main content
Glama

XDaLa Workflow Builder

by io.github.xgr-network

Create XDaLa bundle deploy handoff

create_xdala_bundle_deploy_handoff
Idempotent

Store a validated xgr-multi-bundle@1 bundle offchain under an unguessable bearer handle and return an XDaLa Workbench import URL. The MCP does not sign, submit, or execute transactions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundleYesCanonical XDaLa bundle JSON object to validate, store or hand off.
chainIdYesNumeric EVM chain id for the target network.
networkYesTarget network name or environment, for example mainnet or devnet.
summaryNoStructured summary metadata for human review and audit context.
ttlSecondsNoTime-to-live in seconds for temporary offchain handoff data.
validationNoValidation metadata or validation result object for the handoff.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesStructured result data returned by the XGR MCP gateway.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, open world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds crucial context: 'The MCP does not sign, submit, or execute transactions' and describes offchain storage under an unguessable handle. This goes beyond annotations to clarify the tool's scope and limitations. No contradictions detected.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the core action (store offchain, return URL) and a key behavioral disclaimer (no signing/submitting). Every word is purposeful with no 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 the presence of an output schema (which handles return value details) and annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the key action and limitations. However, it could be improved by mentioning that the bundle should be validated beforehand (siblings like 'validate_xdala_bundle' exist) or by hinting at the output structure.

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% with each parameter documented. The tool description does not add extra meaning or usage details beyond the schema. Since the schema already provides adequate descriptions, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool stores a validated bundle offchain and returns an import URL, and explicitly says it does not sign/submit/execute transactions. While specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'create_handoff' siblings like 'create_operation_handoff', but the mention of 'xgr-multi-bundle@1' and 'XDaLa Workbench' provides sufficient specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_operation_handoff' or validation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., bundle must be validated first) or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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

All XDaLa Workflow Builder 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are many overlapping session-listing tools (list_xdala_sessions, get_recent_xdala_sessions, find_latest_xdala_session, list_xdala_session_ids, get_latest_session_payload) and duplicate validation tools (validate_xdala_bundle is an alias for validate_xgr_multibundle). Descriptions help but boundaries are still unclear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The verb_noun snake_case pattern is consistent across nearly all tools (get_, list_, create_, cancel_, validate_). Minor inconsistencies include the alias validate_xdala_bundle and interchangeable verbs like get_ vs read_ vs resolve_ for similar read operations.

Tool Count1/5

With 95 tools, this is far beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy and difficult for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: handoffs, session queries, transaction exploration, contract reads, validation, gas requests, and purchases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct workflow editing tools), but overall the surface is remarkably complete.

Resources