XRPName MCP Server

Official

by XRPDomains

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but check_domains and get_domain_profile both return owner and profile metadata, which could cause confusion. The overlap is minor as check_domains focuses on availability/pricing for multiple domains while get_domain_profile provides deep single-domain details.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_domains, get_domain_profile, set_primary_domain). The naming is perfectly consistent and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools covering domain lookup, registration, portfolio, and transaction status, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The core domain lifecycle is covered: check availability, register, get profile, list owned domains, and set primary. However, the server lacks tools for updating domain metadata, transferring domains, or accepting/canceling offers, which are notable gaps in a full domain management service.
Average 4.4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 34 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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. It reveals behavioral context by listing the types of operations returned, including paid-but-not-yet-minted orders the user can still complete. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mentions any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, so transparency is partial.
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 compact yet packed with information. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives concrete usage triggers and a parameter hint, all in two sentences. No redundant or wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough context: it specifies the return categories and when to use it. It stops short of describing the exact structure of each offer, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool, it is sufficiently complete.
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% for the only parameter (address), which includes an example. The description echoes the address requirement but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 ('Get all pending XRPL domain operations') and further clarifies the three included categories: incoming offers, outgoing offers, and paid-but-not-yet-minted orders. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_tx_status or get_portfolio.
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 description explicitly states when to use the tool with example user queries ('do I have any pending transfers?', 'what offers are waiting on me?') and before suggesting accept/cancel/continue-mint actions. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses accepted TLDs (.xrp, .xrpl, .xrpfi, .rlusd), the default TLD, the 1–25 domain limit, and the return fields: availability, price in XRP and RLUSD, owner address, profile metadata, a web URL, and invalid_domains. This provides good behavioral insight, though it stops short of describing the exact response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by usage examples and return-value details. It is five sentences long but each sentence adds distinct useful information; it could be tightened slightly but is well-structured and free of filler.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for conveying the tool's behavior. It covers input constraints, TLD handling, return fields, registration URL, and validation errors, making it comprehensive for a domain-checking tool.
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 input schema already fully describes the single 'domains' parameter (array of 1–25 strings, each may include or omit TLD, defaults to .xrp). The tool description repeats this information but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 the specific verb 'Check' with the resource '1 to 25 XRPL domains' and explains the purpose (registration status and cost). The example questions like 'is <name>.xrp taken?' and 'how much does <name>.xrp cost?' clearly distinguish it from sibling tools such as check_tx_status, get_domain_profile, and register_domain.
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 description explicitly says 'Use for questions like...' and provides concrete example queries, giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not, however, state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the examples imply boundaries (e.g., registration is a separate action).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 adds value by mentioning the optional include_history parameter and noting that 'Returns null fields gracefully if no profile is set,' which informs the agent about edge-case behavior. However, it does not discuss potential errors, network effects, or prerequisites like domain ownership, so a perfect score is not warranted.
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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and behavior on missing profiles. The most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no wasteful repetition or filler.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description effectively communicates the return contents by listing the profile fields and the graceful null behavior. It also covers usage guidance and the optional history flag. However, it does not address what happens if the domain itself is not found, leaving a minor gap in error-case coverage.
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 input schema already documents both parameters well. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'pass include_history=true' merely references the parameter). This matches the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage, as the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the full public profile of a single XRPL domain.' It enumerates exactly what the profile contains (owner, NFT token ID, metadata, avatar, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_domains or register_domain.
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 description explicitly states when to use the tool by providing example user queries ('show me X.xrp', 'who owns X.xrp?', etc.). This is clear context for triggering, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the found:false edge case and the two-part return (primary name + owned names). It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or error conditions, but for a read-only lookup these are implied. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes concrete user phrasings and the found:false edge case. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, return behavior, and edge case. It also mentions chaining with get_domain_profile, adding integration context. The only gap is the exact shape of a found:true response, but the schema's param descriptions compensate.
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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described inline. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning, and its phrase 'full list' could conflict with the limit parameter's cap. Since the schema already documents parameters, 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 action ('reverse resolution') and resource (XRPL address), clearly stating it returns the primary XRPName and the full list of owned names. It distinguishes from siblings like get_domain_profile, which performs forward resolution. This makes the tool's unique role unambiguous.
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 description explicitly lists trigger phrases ('who owns [address]?', 'look up this wallet') and suggests chaining with get_domain_profile for wallet exploration. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like check_domains. This is strong guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return statuses (pending, validated, failed, not_found) and engine result code. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the phrasing 'check' and 'validation status' strongly implies a safe read 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?
Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and the second provides usage context and return information. Each sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It includes the usage context (after send_signed_tx), the return statuses, and the engine result code. Sibling tools like check_order_status are clearly differentiated by the XRPL-specific language.
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 only parameter tx_hash is fully documented in the input schema with a regex pattern and description '64-character hex XRPL transaction hash'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referring to 'by hash', so schema coverage is 100% and baseline 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 clearly states the tool checks XRPL transaction validation status by hash, using the specific verb 'check' and resource 'validation status of an XRPL transaction'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_order_status by mentioning XRPL and the send_signed_tx context.
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 description explicitly says 'Use after send_signed_tx to confirm whether the transaction was validated on-ledger,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that registration happens in the browser, the website handles the order, the user signs via wallet there, and the MCP does NOT build/broadcast payment. This gives important behavioral context beyond simple 'get link'.
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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, browser-flow clarification, and usage trigger/parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
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 simple link-generation tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism (browser), what it does NOT do (payment), when to use it, and the optional refcode. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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% for both domain and refcode, so baseline is 3. The description adds a conditional usage note for refcode ('Pass refcode if a referral applies'), but this closely mirrors the schema description, offering minimal added meaning.
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 clearly states the tool 'Get the link to register' with specific TLDs (.xrp/.xrpl/.xrpfi/.rlusd) on xrpdomains.xyz. This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like check_domains or recommend_domain.
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?
Provides explicit trigger examples ('Use when the user says "register X.xrpfi" or "buy X.xrp"') and clarifies the MCP does NOT build or broadcast payment, implying when not to expect full transaction handling. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but gives clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that suggestions are 'creative name + TLD combos with a category', 'cross-checked for availability', 'priced', and 'given a register link'. This clearly explains what the user receives and the processing involved, though it does not detail edge cases or potential limitations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, from the specific examples to the output features.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description summarizes the return content (name+TLD, category, availability, price, register link), which is essential for the agent to understand what to expect. It also covers usage scenarios. Minor gaps like error handling or pagination details are acceptable for a recommendation tool, but prevent a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for the 'query' parameter (e.g., 'tom', 'crypto', 'defi') and hinting at the 'tlds' parameter through the '.xrp ideas' example, enriching the semantic understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get AI-recommended domain suggestions for a keyword or theme.' It specifies the resource (domain suggestions) and the action (recommend), and distinguishes it from siblings like check_domains and register_domain by focusing on AI-based recommendations rather than checking or registering.
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 description provides explicit when-to-use triggers: 'Use when a user asks "suggest names", "find me a domain about X", or "give me some .xrp ideas".' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the usage guidance is clear and actionable, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return fields, what is intentionally excluded (nftoken_id, image, mint time), and the requirement for an XRPL r... address. While it doesn't mention error handling or pagination, it is a read-only listing tool and this is adequate.
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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then usage triggers, return fields, exclusions, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The truncated 'Requires an XRPL r... address' appears to be a display artifact, not a structural flaw.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the returned fields (TLD, length, primary flag, subname flag, quick-action URLs) and what is not included. With the schema fully documenting all parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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%, with all four parameters fully documented. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does reinforce that address is required, but that is already in the schema.
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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'List all XRPL domains owned by a wallet address.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_domain_profile by explicitly noting what is excluded and pointing to that tool for those details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit usage triggers with example user phrasings ('what domains do I own?', 'show me my domains') and directs to get_domain_profile for single domain lookups. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the possible outcome states (payment landed, offer created, mint completed, failed), which is valuable. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the verb 'check' strongly implies a safe operation, and the description adds context beyond a mere status label.
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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, listing possible returns, and providing usage context with an alternative. There is no redundant or vague language.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It also addresses the distinction from check_domains, making it complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the sole parameter 'domain' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying 'for a domain you tried to register', which clarifies that the domain must be one involved in a registration attempt, a nuance not in the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's function: checking backend order status for a domain registration attempt on xrpdomains.xyz. It lists specific return states (payment landed, offer created, mint completed, failed) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling check_domains by noting it is 'deeper' and shows order status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit trigger scenarios with user queries ('did my X.xrp registration go through?') and directly compares to check_domains, which shows availability. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the MCP does NOT build or broadcast the transaction, and that the setting is completed in the browser with wallet signing. This is crucial non-obvious behavior that prevents an agent from falsely assuming the tool performs the mutation directly.
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 well-structured: it starts with the primary action, explains the browser flow and MCP's limited role, gives trigger examples, and states a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary text.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete for selection and invocation. It clarifies what the tool returns (a link), how the process works, when to use it, and what constraints apply (domain ownership). The absence of a return value schema is mitigated by the clear statement that it 'gets the link.'
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter with a clear example ('alice.xrp'). The description adds no new semantic details about the parameter, just repeating the concept in the use examples. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed it.
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 clearly states the tool 'gets the link' to set a domain as primary, with an explicit definition of primary as 'the name shown by default for your address.' It distinguishes this from the sibling register_domain by focusing on the primary-setting action and noting the domain must already be owned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('make X.xrp my primary', 'set X.xrpfi as my main domain') and a clear prerequisite ('The wallet must already own the domain'). It also explains the tool's role in the broader workflow, which helps an agent decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![xrpname-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/XRPDomains/xrpname-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/XRPDomains/xrpname-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![xrpname-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/XRPDomains/xrpname-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/XRPDomains/xrpname-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/XRPDomains/xrpname-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server