Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IndigoProtocol/indigo-mcp

IndigoProtocol/indigo-mcp

Official
by IndigoProtocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_sp_account_by_owner

Fetch stability pool accounts for specific owners using payment key hashes or bech32 addresses. Get detailed position data for any wallet to analyze staking activity in Indigo Protocol.

Instructions

Get stability pool accounts for specific owners (accepts payment key hashes or bech32 addresses)

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": {
      "owners": "<owners>"
    },
    "name": "get_sp_account_by_owner"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownersYesArray of payment key hashes or bech32 addresses

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.14

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, requiring the description to carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It only specifies input format variations but omits return structure, error handling (e.g., owner not found behavior), and performance characteristics.

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 consists of a single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb ('Get'), specifies the resource immediately, and appends input constraints without waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, read-only operation) and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks return value documentation which would be valuable given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage and already documents that owners accepts 'payment key hashes or bech32 addresses'. The description largely repeats this information without adding validation rules, format examples, or semantic relationships between parameters.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), resource ('stability pool accounts'), and filtering scope ('for specific owners'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_stability_pool_accounts (general query) and get_cdps_by_owner (different resource).

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?

While the parenthetical mentions acceptable input formats (payment key hashes or bech32 addresses), the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_stability_pool_accounts or other query alternatives, nor any prerequisites.

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