Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wallet MCP Server

Wallet MCP Server

by askjimmy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

wallet_get_public_key

Retrieve a stored wallet's public key or address by wallet ID to identify the account before signing messages or transactions.

Instructions

Get the public key / address of a stored wallet.

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": {
      "walletId": "<walletId>"
    },
    "name": "wallet_get_public_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletIdYesWallet ID (UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails to. It implies a read, but says nothing about whether the wallet must be unlocked, whether a password is needed, or whether the operation is side-effect free; for a key-material accessor these are material omissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated immediately and no filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter read getter with no output schema, the description names the returned artifact (public key / address) and the scope (stored wallet), which is close to sufficient. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on access prerequisites, which no annotation covers either.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already defining walletId as a UUID string. The description adds no format, sourcing, or example detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('public key / address') scoped to a stored wallet, which distinguishes it in substance from siblings like wallet_get_balance or wallet_sign_message. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with wallet_list/wallet_generate, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'of a stored wallet' quietly tells the agent the wallet must already exist (as opposed to wallet_generate), and the required walletId constrains it. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as wallet_export for retrieving key material.

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