Convert base64-encoded Stellar XDR data into readable JSON or text. Specify the XDR type to decode transactions and results for inspection.
Decode XDR data to human-readable format
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | XDR type to decode (e.g., TransactionEnvelope, TransactionResult) | |
| input | No | XDR data to decode (base64 encoded) | |
| channel | No | XDR specification channel | |
| inputFormat | No | Input format | |
| outputFormat | No | Output format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the transformation result but omits any details about permissions, error handling, rate limits, or the effect of parameters like inputFormat and outputFormat.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a purpose statement, even if more detail would be beneficial elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema fully documents all parameters, so the description need not repeat them. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal and does not explain how multiple inputs, channels, or output formats affect behavior. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and all five parameters have clear descriptions and enum values where applicable. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Decode') and resource ('XDR data') and the outcome ('human-readable format'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like stellar_xdr_encode or stellar_xdr_guess.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stellar_xdr_encode, stellar_xdr_guess, or stellar_tx_decode. The description provides only a bare purpose statement with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.