Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Algorand MCP

Algorand MCP

by GoPlausible
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

make_asset_freeze_txn

Create an Algorand transaction to freeze or unfreeze a specific asset for a target account, controlling asset transfer permissions.

Instructions

Create an asset freeze transaction

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "assetIndex": "<assetIndex>",
      "freezeTarget": "<freezeTarget>",
      "freezeState": "<freezeState>"
    },
    "name": "make_asset_freeze_txn"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYesSender address in standard Algorand format (58 characters)
assetIndexYesIndex of the asset being frozen
freezeTargetYesAddress of the account whose asset is being frozen/unfrozen
freezeStateYesTrue to freeze the asset, false to unfreeze
noteNoTransaction note field (up to 1000 bytes)
rekeyToNoAddress to rekey the sender account to
feeNoTransaction fee in microAlgos. If not set, uses suggested fee from the network
flatFeeNoIf true, fee is used as-is (flat fee). If false (default), fee is per-byte
networkNoAlgorand network to use (default: mainnet)
itemsPerPageNoNumber of items per page for paginated responses (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.1.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create an asset freeze transaction' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., asset manager role), if it's irreversible, potential side effects (e.g., locking assets), or network implications (e.g., transaction fees, confirmation time).

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that's self-explanatory at a basic level, though it lacks depth.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a transaction object, success status), error conditions, or real-world usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even high-level context like 'freezeState toggles freezing on/off'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create an asset freeze transaction' states the action (create) and resource (asset freeze transaction), but it's vague about what an 'asset freeze transaction' entails in the Algorand context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling transaction tools like make_asset_config_txn or make_asset_transfer_txn beyond the name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing asset manager permissions), typical use cases (e.g., compliance, security), or how it relates to sibling tools like make_asset_config_txn (which might handle similar functions).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools