Armor Crypto MCP

Official

by armorwallet

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

send_key_to_telegram

Send a wallet's private key or mnemonic directly to Telegram for retrieval or backup.

Instructions

Send the mnemonic or private key to telegram.

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": {
      "private_key_request": "<private_key_request>"
    },
    "name": "send_key_to_telegram"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`private_key_request`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that sending keys externally is a highly risky action, potentially exposing secrets. No warning or behavioral context about the tool's irreversible nature or security implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (9 words), which is concise but sacrifices necessary content. Important warnings and parameter details are omitted, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite having a complex input schema and an output schema, the description covers none of them. It does not explain input requirements, output format, or security implications, making it incomplete for safe tool usage.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no information about the parameters. It does not mention 'wallet', 'key_type', or the nested 'private_key_request' object, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the schema.

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 states the action (send) and the resource (mnemonic or private key) and destination (telegram). However, it could be more precise about the mechanism (e.g., to a specific chat) and lacks differentiation from siblings, though the action is unique among them.

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 on when to use this tool or alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, risks, or when not to use it, which is critical for a tool that exposes sensitive keys.

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