Skip to main content
Glama

XRPLHub — XRPLScore & XRPL actions

by io.github.Dcroyalty

issue_score_credential

Get a signed, tamper-evident certificate of a wallet's XRPLScore that any counterparty can verify without trusting the holder — the free score isn't provable to a third party, this is. Two calls: first returns a Xaman payment request (1 XRP or 1 RLUSD, valid 90 days); call again with the same wallet_address + returned uuid after signing to get certId and verifyUrl. Params: wallet_address (r..., required), currency (XRP|RLUSD, default XRP), uuid (2nd call only). No signup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidNoOnly for the second call: the payment uuid returned by the first call, after the user has signed in Xaman.
currencyNoPayment currency. Defaults to XRP.
wallet_addressYesXRP Ledger wallet address the credential will attest to (starts with r)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

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 carries full behavioral weight and does so thoroughly: it discloses the two-call stateful flow, the 1 XRP/RLUSD payment requirement, 90-day validity, the need to sign in Xaman, and the returned artifacts. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Three compact sentences lead with the value proposition, then workflow, then parameters. Every sentence adds necessary context, including cost, validity, and the no-signup note, with no filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what each call returns. It covers the full issuance lifecycle, payment details, validity period, and parameter roles, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description largely restates schema information for wallet_address, currency, and uuid, adding only minor workflow framing via '2nd call only' and the default currency. It does not substantially enrich parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a signed, tamper-evident certificate of a wallet's XRPLScore.' It also distinguishes itself from the free score by explaining that this version is provable to a third party, making its purpose and differentiator clear.

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 explicit two-call usage instructions: first call gets a payment request, second call with wallet_address and uuid returns certId and verifyUrl. It implies when this should be preferred over the free score, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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

All XRPLHub — XRPLScore & XRPL actions toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools generally split cleanly by resource: scores, credentials, MPTs, transactions, and community fund. The three MPT-related tools and the score-lookup vs score-credential pair could briefly overlap in purpose, but their descriptions are detailed enough to resolve the ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with clear verbs such as check, get, list, search, build, submit, verify, donate, and issue. There is no mixing of naming styles or vague generic verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Thirteen tools is well-scoped for a server covering XRPL scores, credentials, MPTs, transaction building, and community fund actions. The 35 supported transaction types are sensibly collapsed behind list and build tools rather than exploding into dozens of endpoints.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: score lookup, credential verification, MPT risk and search, transaction building, and community fund participation. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone grant-status lookup or explicit score-credential verification endpoint, but these are workable around.

Resources