Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@xrpl-utilities/mcp

@xrpl-utilities/mcp

by XRPL-Utilities
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

xrpl_trust_get_domain

Retrieve a domain's lifecycle history, permissioned market activity (XLS-81), and DID/TOML identity using its 64-hex ID.

Instructions

Paid ($0.10 USD). Deep dive on one PermissionedDomain by 64-hex ID: lifecycle history, permissioned market activity (XLS-81), and DID/TOML identity.

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": {
      "domain_id": "<domain_id>"
    },
    "name": "xrpl_trust_get_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domain_idYes64-hex LedgerIndex of the domain.
payment_signatureNox402 payment header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.184

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.10 USD) and the scope of data, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or explain how the payment_signature parameter is used. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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, well-structured sentence with a cost lead-in, a colon, and a list of data categories. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the three key data categories returned. It also mentions payment. It is incomplete about return format or payment mechanics, but for a deep-dive tool with only two parameters, it provides sufficient context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the domain_id format ('64-hex ID') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. It does not explain the payment_signature further.

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 performs a deep dive on a single PermissionedDomain identified by 64-hex ID, listing specific data categories (lifecycle history, permissioned market activity, DID/TOML identity). This distinguishes it from sibling list/scan tools.

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 'Deep dive on one PermissionedDomain' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when detailed information on a specific domain is needed—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since no explicit when-not-to-use is given, it earns a 4.

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