Skip to main content
Glama

XDaLa Workflow Builder

by io.github.xgr-network

Get XDaLa start payload history

get_xdala_start_payload_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only indexed history of payload values used when starting a specific XRC-729 OSTC entry step. Reads Explorer PGRO through the MCP gateway only, selects the first matching entry-step receipt per owner/session, and returns compact scalar value statistics for UI pickers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of records to return.
ownerNoEVM address of the XDaLa session owner or relevant account.
ostcIdYesOrchestration step contract id for the XDaLa workflow.
stepIdYesCanonical XDaLa step id used by Workbench/session-start requests.
windowHoursNoValue for the window hours parameter.
xrc729AddressYesValue for the xrc729 address parameter.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses the data source (Explorer PGRO via MCP gateway), the per-owner/session deduplication behavior (first matching receipt), and the return type (compact scalar statistics). This is rich behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause contributes new information: data source, selection rule, and output format. No wasted words.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain return structure. It adds valuable context about source, selection logic, and intended use. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over sibling payload-stats tools, leaving a small completeness gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds clarity around 'per owner/session' grouping, but it does not meaningfully explain parameters like windowHours or limit, leaving the schema to carry that burden (where windowHours description is tautological).

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 reads an indexed history of payload values for starting a specific XRC-729 OSTC entry step, and returns compact scalar value statistics for UI pickers. It distinguishes itself from sibling payload stats tools by emphasizing the start-payload history and UI picker use case.

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 UI pickers and provides operational details like reading Explorer PGRO and selecting the first receipt per owner/session, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_xdala_payload_field_value_stats or get_latest_session_payload.

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