Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gasrescue

gasrescue MCP server

Official
by gasrescue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Submit signatures and send

submit_signatures
Destructive

Submits wallet signatures for an approved quote so gasrescue can broadcast the transfer, pay gas, and return confirmation or failure with transaction hash.

Instructions

Submits the wallet's signatures for a quote; gasrescue broadcasts the transaction, pays the gas and waits up to 3 minutes for the result. This moves funds and cannot be undone: call it only after the user approved the quote summary. A transfer can be submitted once; a second call is refused. Give signatures for EVM and Tron, or signedTransaction for Solana. Returns { summary, transfer } with status confirmed or failed, the transaction hash and the explorer link.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signaturesNoEVM and Tron: one signature per step of get_signing_request, in the same order, as hex strings.
transferIdYesThe id gasrescue returned as transfer.id from quote_send or quote_swap: 24 lowercase hex characters, e.g. "b39f46001a5680455091152d". Not a transaction hash and not an id of another service.
signedTransactionNoSolana only: the transaction from get_signing_request, signed by the sender, base64.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / transferId / description
      Previous value: -"The transfer id returned by quote_send or quote_swap (24 hex characters)."New value: +"The id gasrescue returned as transfer.id from quote_send or quote_swap: 24 lowercase hex characters, e.g. \"b39f46001a5680455091152d\". Not a transaction hash and not an id of another service."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / signatures / description
      Added value: +"EVM and Tron: one signature per step of get_signing_request, in the same order, as hex strings."
    • addedInput schema / properties / signedTransaction / description
      Added value: +"Solana only: the transaction from get_signing_request, signed by the sender, base64."
    • changedInput schema / properties / transferId / description
      Previous value: -"The transfer id from a quote."New value: +"The transfer id returned by quote_send or quote_swap (24 hex characters)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / transferId / pattern
      Added value: +"^[0-9a-f]{24}$"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantive context on top: funds move irreversibly, a third party pays gas, there is a ~3 minute wait, and duplicate submission is rejected. It also discloses the return shape (summary/transfer with confirmed or failed, hash, explorer link) absent an output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and its cost, then the precondition and the chain-specific input rule. The third sentence is dense and packs several ideas, but every clause carries information an agent needs before committing funds.

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 high-risk, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers cost, irreversibility, timing, retry limits, per-chain input requirements, and return contents. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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 goes further by explaining the mutual exclusivity between signatures and signedTransaction per chain and tying signatures to the ordering of get_signing_request steps. It stops short of restating the transferId format, which the schema already handles.

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?

States a specific verb (submits signatures) and the downstream consequence (gasrescue broadcasts, pays gas, waits up to 3 minutes), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It is clearly distinguishable from get_signing_request (which produces signatures) and get_transfer (which only reads state).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit preconditions: call only after the user approved the quote summary, and only once per transfer since a second call is refused. It also routes by chain (signatures for EVM/Tron vs signedTransaction for Solana), leaving little to inference.

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