@xrpl-utilities/mcp

xrpl_trust_credential_issuers

Get a list of all credential issuers across PermissionedDomains on the XRPL, including address, label, domain count, and credential types.

Instructions

Paid ($0.10 USD). All credential issuers across PermissionedDomains: address, label, referencing domain count, and credential types issued.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "xrpl_trust_credential_issuers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payment_signature`	No	x402 payment header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.184Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the cost ($0.10 USD) and the data fields returned, adding useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations available, the description carries a heavier burden but covers only some behavioral aspects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the cost and then summarizes the output fields. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the cost and the specific output fields, giving a reasonable understanding of the result. It could be more explicit about the return shape (list vs. single object) and any failure modes, but it is largely complete for an initial assessment.

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 a description for 'payment_signature' ('x402 payment header'), and the description's mention of 'Paid ($0.10 USD)' reinforces the parameter's purpose. No additional syntax or behavioral semantics are added beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the resource ('credential issuers across PermissionedDomains') and specifies the exact output fields (address, label, referencing domain count, credential types issued). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' but the intent is unambiguous and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on domains, operators, and events.

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 such as xrpl_trust_list_domains or xrpl_trust_get_domain. The description only states what the tool returns, not the intended use case or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server