StellarMCP

stellar_xdr_json_schema

Obtain a Draft-7 JSON Schema for a specified Stellar XDR type to structure data for XDR encoding.

Instructions

Return Draft-7 JSON Schema for a Stellar XDR type (use with stellar_xdr_encode).

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": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "stellar_xdr_json_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	Yes	Stellar XDR type name (see stellar_xdr_types), e.g. TransactionEnvelope

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. Saying it 'Returns Draft-7 JSON Schema' makes the read-only, retrieval nature apparent and identifies the output format. It does not discuss error handling for unknown type names, but that is a minor gap for this operation.

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 contains the core action, output format, and relationship to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, in what format, and how the result should be used. The parameter's valid values are covered by the schema's reference to stellar_xdr_types.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter as a Stellar XDR type name with an example. The description adds workflow context but no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resource: a Draft-7 JSON Schema for a Stellar XDR type. It also links to stellar_xdr_encode, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like stellar_xdr_types and stellar_decode_xdr.

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 phrase 'use with stellar_xdr_encode' signals the intended context and workflow. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but for a simple schema-fetching utility this is clear enough.

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