XGR MCP Gateway

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Validate XDaLa blueprint

validate_xdala_blueprint

Validates blueprint consistency by checking node names, spawn/join targets, k-of-n thresholds, and input field coverage across OSTC and per-step XRC-137 drafts.

Instructions

Use this after drafting an XRC-729 OSTC plus per-step XRC-137 drafts. It checks node names, spawn targets, join targets, join from nodes, k-of-n thresholds and whether required XRC-137 input fields are provided by initial payload or predecessor output payloads. It is a blueprint consistency validator, not a replacement for validate_xrc137_authoring.

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": {
      "ostc": "<ostc>",
      "xrc137ByStep": "<xrc137ByStep>",
      "entryStepId": "<entryStepId>"
    },
    "name": "validate_xdala_blueprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ostc`	Yes
`xrc137ByStep`	Yes
`entryStepId`	Yes
`initialPayloadFields`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool validates but lacks details on return behavior, side effects, or error handling. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 usage context, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 validator with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the main validation scope. Some aspects like return format or performance implications are omitted, but it is largely sufficient for the task.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It references the parameters' context (XRC-729 OSTC, XRC-137 drafts) and mentions the fields checked, but does not fully explain each parameter's structure or constraints beyond the schema.

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 as a blueprint consistency validator, listing specific checks (node names, spawn targets, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from validate_xrc137_authoring.

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?

Provides a clear usage context ('Use this after drafting...') and directly identifies when not to use it ('not a replacement for validate_xrc137_authoring'). However, does not explicitly state exclusions for other related tools.

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

Deploy Server