StellarMCP

stellar_create_trustline

Create a trustline for a non-native Stellar credit asset to enable an account to hold and transact it, returning the transaction hash.

Instructions

Create a trustline for a non-native Stellar asset and return transaction hash.

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "asset_code": "<asset_code>",
      "asset_issuer": "<asset_issuer>"
    },
    "name": "stellar_create_trustline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	Yes	Account public key that will hold the trustline.
`asset_code`	Yes	Credit asset code.
`asset_issuer`	Yes	Issuer public key for the credit asset.
`limit`	No	Optional trustline limit. Defaults to max representable amount.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an on-chain state change ('Create') and the return artifact ('transaction hash'). It omits behavioral side conditions such as fee requirements or the need for the account to already exist, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded action, resource, and output with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, schema-covered, and the description supplies the output contract (transaction hash), so an agent has the essentials to call it. It could add prerequisites or a note that this submits an on-chain transaction, but these are not required for basic invocation.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters and the optional limit default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the conceptual 'non-native' framing and does not provide extra parameter semantics 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?

States a concrete action—'Create a trustline for a non-native Stellar asset'—and closes with the return value. The resource is specific enough to separate it from payment, liquidity, and Soroban siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'non-native Stellar asset' qualifier gives a clear condition for when this tool applies and implicitly rules out native-asset cases. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or list exclusion cases, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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