StellarMCP

stellar_get_anchor_toml

Retrieve and parse stellar.toml from an anchor domain to identify supported Stellar Ecosystem Proposals (SEPs) for integration.

Instructions

Fetch and parse the stellar.toml file for a given anchor domain to discover SEP support (SEP-10, SEP-24, etc).

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": {
      "anchorDomain": "<anchorDomain>"
    },
    "name": "stellar_get_anchor_toml"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`anchorDomain`	Yes	Anchor domain, e.g. anchor.example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool performs a network fetch and parsing, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, the expected domain-to-URL convention, or whether the output is raw TOML or a structured summary. No contradiction exists.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately explains the purpose, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the action and the purpose. It could additionally mention the output shape or the standard .well-known/stellar.toml resolution, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly with the current description.

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%, and the single parameter 'anchorDomain' already has a clear description with an example. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics, but the schema alone is sufficient, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch and parse the stellar.toml file'. It also states the outcome ('discover SEP support'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from the many Stellar sibling tools focused on transactions, XDR, or specific SEP endpoints.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'to discover SEP support' implies when the tool is useful, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives, such as the SEP-specific tools, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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