Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lends-mcp-server

lends-mcp-server

Official
by LendsProtocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Lends Prepare Approve Leusd For Repay

lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_repay
Read-onlyIdempotent

Construct leUSD token approval to authorize repayment of a borrowed position on the LENDS protocol.

Instructions

Construct leUSD approval for protocol repayment.

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_repay"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Construct' aligns with a preparatory, non-mutating action. The description does not add meaningful behavioral detail beyond that, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter schema and strong safety annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the absence of amount semantics and any indication of what the constructed approval output looks like, which matters since there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero description coverage for the single 'amount' parameter, and the tool description does not explain its units, precision, or whether it is in base leUSD units. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema guidance.

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 verb and resource: 'Construct leUSD approval.' It narrows the purpose to 'protocol repayment,' which distinguishes it from sibling approval tools such as lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_psm and lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_staking.

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 'for protocol repayment' implies the intended context, giving some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the other leUSD approval variants, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions.

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