StellarMCP

stellar_sep12_customer

Send or fetch customer KYC information to/from a Stellar Anchor's SEP-12 server using a JWT token. Supports GET and PUT methods.

Instructions

GET or PUT customer KYC data to an Anchor's SEP-12 KYC_SERVER.

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>",
      "method": "<method>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "stellar_sep12_customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`anchorDomain`	Yes	Anchor domain, e.g. anchor.example.com
`method`	Yes	HTTP method to use
`token`	Yes	SEP-10 JWT authentication token
`kycFields`	No	Key-value pairs of KYC fields to PUT (e.g. first_name, last_name, email)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the HTTP method semantics (GET/PUT) and the destination. It does not disclose side effects of PUT (create vs. update), authentication/token failure behavior, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation, resource, and protocol all appear in the first line. It is appropriately sized for a simple HTTP-wrapper tool.

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?

The schema covers parameter semantics and method constraints, but there is no output schema and no description of the response shape for GET or PUT. For a protocol-specific SEP-12 tool, some guidance on what the caller receives or how the KYC server is reached would round it out.

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 already documents token, method, kycFields, and anchorDomain. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, giving the baseline score of 3.

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 names a specific resource (customer KYC data) and the allowed operations (GET or PUT), and pins them to a concrete destination (Anchor's SEP-12 KYC_SERVER). This differentiates it from sibling SEP-6/SEP-24/SEP-31 tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 context is clear: use this tool whenever a SEP-12 KYC customer endpoint needs to be read or updated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the protocol and resource are specific enough to guide selection.

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