Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Algorand MCP

Algorand MCP

by GoPlausible
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

send_raw_transaction

Submit signed transactions to the Algorand blockchain network for processing and confirmation.

Instructions

Submit signed transactions to the Algorand network

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": {
      "signedTxns": "<signedTxns>"
    },
    "name": "send_raw_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signedTxnsYesArray of signed transactions to submit to the network
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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a write operation (likely yes, given 'submit'), potential costs/fees, network latency, idempotency, error handling, or confirmation requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('submit') and target, making it immediately clear. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of submitting transactions to a blockchain (a write operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what happens after submission (e.g., returns transaction IDs, errors, or confirmations), network-specific behaviors, or error cases. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively in context.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying submission to a network, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('submit') and target ('signed transactions to the Algorand network'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'simulate_raw_transactions' or 'sign_transaction', which handle similar transaction-related operations but with different purposes.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing signed transactions first (e.g., from 'sign_transaction') or when to use 'simulate_raw_transactions' for testing instead. The description lacks context for decision-making among related tools.

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