qubic-mcp

save_wallet

Store a Qubic wallet address under a friendly name for quick access. Saves only the public address locally, never keys.

Instructions

Save a Qubic wallet address with a friendly name for quick access. Only saves the public address — never stores seeds or private keys. Stored locally in ~/.qubic-mcp/wallets.json.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "save_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	A friendly name for this wallet (e.g., "my-main", "trading", "savings")
`address`	Yes	The 60-character Qubic address to save

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.2Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly states that only public addresses are saved, never seeds/private keys, and that data is stored locally in ~/.qubic-mcp/wallets.json. This is critical behavioral context for an agent handling wallet information.

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 action, and each sentence contributes unique value: purpose and security/storage detail. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 2-parameter save tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the privacy implications, and the storage location. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what side effects to expect, without needing additional return-value details.

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 schema already provides full parameter meaning. The description adds a small reinforcement ('friendly name' aligns with the name parameter) but does not add any extra constraints or format details beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation.

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: 'Save a Qubic wallet address with a friendly name for quick access.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_wallets, remove_wallet) by explicitly focusing on the save action, and adds a specific safety clarification that only the public address is stored, never seeds/private keys.

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 conveys clear context: use when you want to store a wallet for quick access. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool names ('list_wallets', 'remove_wallet') implicitly provide the decision boundary, and the phrase 'for quick access' gives a concrete use case.

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