Tronsave MCP Testnet

Submit Delegation Extension

tronsave_internal_create_extend_request

Submit an extension request for existing delegated resources on TronSave, paid from the internal account. Requires a logged-in MCP session created by the tronsave_login tool: include mcp-session-id: <sessionId> returned by tronsave_login on subsequent MCP requests. Internal tools never accept API keys via tool arguments; signature sessions resolve the latest internal API key on demand, while api-key sessions reuse the validated key from login. Side effect: SPENDS internal TRX and creates an extension order; not idempotent. Use as STEP 2 after tronsave_internal_extend_delegates — pass its extendData rows unchanged. Returns { orderId } for the new extension order.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`receiver`	Yes	TRON base58 address of the account that receives the delegated resource.
`extendData`	Yes	Rows copied from `extendData` returned by `tronsave_internal_extend_delegates`.
`resourceType`	No	Resource type. Default ENERGY when omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`orderId`	No	TronSave order ID (hex string) of the created/extension order.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open world. Description adds specifics: spends internal TRX, creates order, session authentication details, and that internal tools don't accept API keys. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is a single paragraph with multiple sentences, but most sentences add unique value. Slightly repetitive on session handling, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, authorization, side effects, and return format (orderId). Missing details on error handling or session expiration, but adequate for typical use with annotations and output schema hinted.

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% with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining that extendData rows should be passed unchanged from tronsave_internal_extend_delegates, which aids correct usage beyond 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 states it submits an extension request for delegated resources, using specific verbs ('Submit') and resource ('extension request'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tronsave_internal_extend_delegates (step 1) and others by explicitly positioning itself as step 2.

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?

Provides explicit step context ('Use as STEP 2 after tronsave_internal_extend_delegates'), details session requirements (tronsave_login), and notes side effects (spends TRX, not idempotent). This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisites.

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

All Tronsave MCP Testnet tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple order creation tools (tronsave_create_order, tronsave_internal_order_create, tronsave_internal_create_extend_request) and multiple estimation tools (tronsave_estimate_buy_resource, tronsave_get_min_price, tronsave_internal_order_estimate). This would confuse an agent trying to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools follow a tronsave_verb_noun pattern with snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent (e.g., list vs get, create vs register) and the internal_ prefix creates two distinct naming styles. Some tools like tronsave_internal_order_book and tronsave_list_order_books are confusingly similar.

Tool Count2/5

29 tools is excessive for a server focused on a single market. Many tools duplicate functionality for internal vs signature authentication, bloating the surface. A more streamlined set (e.g., 10-15) would be more appropriate.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers core operations like CRUD for orders, account info, and auto-settings. However, there are gaps: no explicit delete for auto-sell settings, and manual sell is the only sell option. Some internal tools appear redundant, but overall coverage is adequate.

Resources

Need Help?