Hyperlane MCP Server

run-validator

Start a validator to secure transactions on a specified blockchain within the Hyperlane cross-chain network.

Instructions

Runs a validator for a specific chain.

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": {
      "chainName": "<chainName>"
    },
    "name": "run-validator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chainName`	Yes	Name of the chain to validate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedDec 29, 2025

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It implies an execution action ('runs') but doesn't specify if it's read-only, destructive, requires permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs validation operations.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity implied by 'validator' (likely a critical operation), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The description lacks details on what validation entails, expected outcomes, or error handling, making it insufficient for informed tool selection.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single parameter 'chainName'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional context like chain format or examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Runs a validator for a specific chain' clearly states the action (runs) and target (validator for a chain), but it's vague about what 'runs' entails (e.g., starts, executes, validates) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'run-relayer' or 'deploy-chain'. It avoids tautology by not restating the name, but lacks specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after deployment), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among siblings like 'run-relayer' or 'deploy-chain'.

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

Deploy Server