Tronsave MCP Testnet

Extendable Delegates

tronsave_list_extendable_delegates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List extendable delegate candidates for a receiver and resourceType (ENERGY|BANDWIDTH). Optional suggestData scores an extend-and-buy scenario for planning purposes. Read-only; does NOT create orders or change on-chain state. Works without mcp-session-id; when a session is present, auth is forwarded so results can reflect the logged-in account where supported. NOTE: this is GraphQL market data for discovery only. To actually submit an extension, call the authenticated REST POST /v2/get-extendable-delegates with extendData (payload shape differs from this GraphQL response).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`receiver`	Yes	TRON base58 address (typically starts with `T`) that currently receives or will receive the delegated resource. This is the primary filter: the response describes delegates relevant to extending that account's delegation.
`requester`	No	Optional TRON base58 address of the viewing/requesting party. When an MCP session is active, the server may still derive identity from auth headers; use this when the API expects an explicit requester string distinct from the receiver.
`suggestData`	No	Optional nested scenario for extend-and-buy suggestion scoring. If omitted, the query returns delegate rows without that hypothetical. If provided, supply all four fields together; partial objects are invalid for typical GraphQL input shapes.
`resourceType`	Yes	Which resource market leg to query: `ENERGY` for contract execution headroom, `BANDWIDTH` for transaction bandwidth. Must match how you plan to extend or buy.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`extendableDelegates`	Yes	Null when the market has no payload or GraphQL returned no branch; check tool-level errors for hard failures.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it confirms the tool is read-only and does not change state, explains session handling, and clarifies it is GraphQL market data for discovery only. No contradictions with 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 concise with four sentences, each providing essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers optional inputs, behavioral traits, and a critical note about the actual submission endpoint. No extraneous content.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (with nested objects), an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, parameter context, read-only nature, session handling, and a pointer to the correct endpoint for submission. It does not need to explain the output schema since it exists.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description provides some additional context (e.g., that receiver and resourceType are primary filters, and suggestData fields must be supplied together), but it largely reiterates the schema descriptions. This adds marginal 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 states that the tool lists extendable delegate candidates for a given receiver and resourceType (ENERGY or BANDWIDTH). It uses specific verbs ('List extendable delegate candidates') and identifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is read-only and part of GraphQL market data discovery, not for actual submission.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: for discovery and planning. It warns against using it for actual order submission, directing to a different endpoint. It also explains that it works without a session and how auth is forwarded when present, and clarifies that suggestData is optional for scoring.

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?