Skip to main content
Glama

XDaLa Workflow Builder

by io.github.xgr-network

Request XGR starter gas

request_xgr_starter_gas

Use this tool when a user or agent needs native XGR to pay transaction fees on the configured XGR network. It sends one fixed 1 XGR grant from a dedicated server-controlled funding wallet to an eligible low-balance EVM address. Use it before deployments, session starts, contract calls or other on-chain actions when the address lacks gas. One confirmed grant per address; client-IP request limits apply; no repayment is required. The service never requests, receives or stores user or third-party private keys and cannot sign on behalf of users.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesEVM wallet, Safe or contract address in 0x-prefixed hexadecimal format.
purposeNoValue for the purpose parameter.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant value beyond annotations: it explains the fixed 1 XGR grant, server-controlled wallet, eligibility (low-balance), per-address confirmation, IP limits, and security disclaimer about private keys. Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotence, but description provides rich context.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the primary use case. Every sentence earns its place, covering key aspects without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: usage, grant mechanics, limits, eligibility, and security. It could be more explicit about what happens if the address already received a grant or is not eligible, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'address' parameter (eligible low-balance EVM address) and the fixed amount (1 XGR), which helps agents understand constraints. The 'purpose' parameter is not elaborated, but overall it adds moderate value.

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 request 1 XGR grant for paying transaction fees on the configured network. It uses specific verbs ('sends') and resource ('XGR grant'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like purchase orders by specifying it's for low-balance gas needs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly advises using this tool before on-chain actions when the address lacks gas, and notes per-address and IP limits. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., when more than 1 XGR is needed) or reference sibling tools for alternatives.

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