Skip to main content
Glama

Execute Batch Actions

dual_batch_actions

Execute multiple blockchain actions atomically in a single batch operation, ensuring all succeed or all fail together for complex workflows.

Instructions

Execute multiple actions atomically in a single batch. All actions succeed or all fail. Useful for complex operations like: mint + transfer + configure in one transaction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionsYesArray of actions to execute atomically (1-50)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for dual_batch_actions tool. Makes a POST request to 'ebus/actions/batch' endpoint with the actions array, executes multiple actions atomically (all succeed or all fail), and returns a success message with the count of actions executed. Handles errors via try-catch.
    }, async (params) => {
      try {
        const res = await makeApiRequest<Record<string, unknown>>("ebus/actions/batch", "POST", params);
        return textResult(`Batch of ${params.actions.length} actions executed.\n${JSON.stringify(res, null, 2)}`);
      } catch (e) { return errorResult(handleApiError(e)); }
    });
  • Tool registration and input schema for dual_batch_actions. Defines the tool metadata (title, description, annotations) and inputSchema with an array of actions (1-50 items), each containing action_type, object_id, and optional payload.
      server.registerTool("dual_batch_actions", {
        title: "Execute Batch Actions",
        description: `Execute multiple actions atomically in a single batch. All actions succeed or all fail.
    Useful for complex operations like: mint + transfer + configure in one transaction.`,
        inputSchema: {
          actions: z.array(z.object({
            action_type: z.string().describe("Action type name"),
            object_id: z.string().describe("Target object ID"),
            payload: z.record(z.unknown()).optional().describe("Action payload"),
          })).min(1).max(50).describe("Array of actions to execute atomically (1-50)"),
        },
        annotations: { readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false, openWorldHint: true },
  • The makeApiRequest helper function that performs the actual HTTP request. Constructs the Axios config with proper headers (including auth), method, URL, data, and params. Returns the response data from the API.
    export async function makeApiRequest<T>(
      endpoint: string,
      method: "GET" | "POST" | "PUT" | "PATCH" | "DELETE" = "GET",
      data?: unknown,
      params?: Record<string, unknown>,
      options?: { timeout?: number; multipart?: boolean }
    ): Promise<T> {
      const config: AxiosRequestConfig = {
        method,
        url: `${API_BASE_URL}/${endpoint}`,
        headers: getAuthHeaders(),
        timeout: options?.timeout ?? 30000,
      };
    
      if (data !== undefined) config.data = data;
      if (params) config.params = params;
      if (options?.multipart) {
        config.headers = { ...config.headers, "Content-Type": "multipart/form-data" };
      }
    
      const response = await axios(config);
      return response.data as T;
    }
  • Helper functions for formatting tool responses. textResult creates a standard success response with text content, while errorResult creates an error response with isError flag set to true.
    export function textResult(text: string) {
      return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text }] };
    }
    
    /** Standard error content response */
    export function errorResult(text: string) {
      return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text }], isError: true as const };
    }
  • The handleApiError helper function that formats API errors into actionable user-friendly messages. Handles various HTTP status codes (400, 401, 403, 404, 409, 422, 429) and network errors with specific guidance.
    export function handleApiError(error: unknown): string {
      if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
        const axiosErr = error as AxiosError<{ error?: { message?: string }; message?: string }>;
        if (axiosErr.response) {
          const status = axiosErr.response.status;
          const body = axiosErr.response.data;
          const msg = body?.error?.message || body?.message || "";
    
          switch (status) {
            case 400:
              return `Error: Bad request. ${msg || "Check your parameters and try again."}`;
            case 401:
              return "Error: Authentication required. Use dual_login or set DUAL_ACCESS_TOKEN / DUAL_API_KEY environment variable.";
            case 403:
              return `Error: Permission denied. ${msg || "You don't have access to this resource."}`;
            case 404:
              return `Error: Resource not found. ${msg || "Check the ID is correct."}`;
            case 409:
              return `Error: Conflict. ${msg || "Resource already exists or state conflict."}`;
            case 422:
              return `Error: Validation failed. ${msg || "Check your input data."}`;
            case 429:
              return "Error: Rate limit exceeded. Wait a moment before making more requests.";
            default:
              return `Error: API request failed (${status}). ${msg}`;
          }
        } else if (axiosErr.code === "ECONNABORTED") {
          return "Error: Request timed out. The DUAL API may be slow — try again.";
        } else if (axiosErr.code === "ECONNREFUSED") {
          return "Error: Cannot reach DUAL API. Check your DUAL_API_URL or network connection.";
        }
      }
      return `Error: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`;
    }
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the atomic 'all succeed or all fail' property, which isn't covered by the existing annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). This is critical information for understanding transaction behavior. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling specifics.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality and atomic guarantee, the second provides usage context with concrete examples. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (atomic execution) is front-loaded.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description does well by explaining the critical atomic behavior. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure (return values, error formats) or address potential side effects beyond the atomic guarantee. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, some additional context about expected responses would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'actions' parameter thoroughly including its structure, constraints (1-50 items), and component fields. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('execute multiple actions atomically') and resource ('in a single batch'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing atomic batch execution. It provides concrete examples ('mint + transfer + configure in one transaction') that illustrate its unique value proposition compared to individual action tools like dual_execute_action.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for complex operations'), implying it should be used for multi-step workflows requiring atomicity. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like dual_execute_action for single actions), which prevents a perfect score.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ro-ro-b/dual-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server