xrpl-did-mcp

List the credentials on an account

list_credentials

Retrieve all XRP Ledger credentials tied to an account, both held as subject and issued to others, to identify credential types and acceptance status without knowing issuer details.

Instructions

List every credential on the XRP Ledger that involves an account -- the ones it holds as a subject, and the ones it issued to others.

This is a pure read. It submits no transaction, spends nothing, and does not need --allow-writes.

Use this when you know WHO but not WHICH credential: it answers 'what credentials does this account have?' without needing the issuer, subject and type up front. For one known credential's state, use get_credential instead.

Results carry the issuer, the subject, the credential type, and whether the subject has accepted each one. Credentials that exist but were never accepted are marked accepted=false, because XLS-70 only sets that flag when the subject signs.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	Yes
`network`	No
`include_issued`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.6.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares 'pure read', notes no transaction is submitted, nothing spent, and no --allow-writes needed. It also explains the accepted=false semantics of the result set. It stops short of covering pagination, filtering limits, or error behavior, which a no-annotation tool would ideally also address.

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?

Three short paragraphs: what it returns, safety profile, and routing rule. Each sentence carries distinct information and the purpose statement is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional and the description's field summary is a bonus. For a read-only list tool the description covers purpose, safety, routing, and result semantics; the main remaining gap is the two undocumented optional parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It implies the account selector and the subject/issuer duality, but says nothing about what 'include_issued' toggles (despite it being a meaningful default-true flag) or what 'network' selects. The account and include_issued parameters remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every credential') plus a precise scope: credentials where the account is subject or issuer. It also contrasts with get_credential, so the agent can separate this from its closest sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule ('Use this when you know WHO but not WHICH credential') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('For one known credential's state, use get_credential instead'). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern done well.

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

Deploy Server