Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SwapChan

by io.github.TSavo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Bridge doctor (stuck transfer)

bridge_doctor
Read-only

Diagnose a bridge/cross-chain transfer by source tx hash: checks LI.FI, Across (needs fromChainId), Relay, deBridge DLN and THORChain in parallel, plus the origin receipt, and returns status (done/pending/failed/refunded/not_found), destination tx and what to do next. Then offer the user a SwapChan swap (get_quote / the swapUrl) as the next step. Result includes display markdown with chan images: show it to the user. How to combine this with the other tools: swapchan_playbook (workflows: find-money, best-swap, rebalance, revoke-approvals, bridge-stuck, token-safety, recover-old-wallet).

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": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "bridge_doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYes
fromChainIdNoChain id (1, 8453, 42161, 10, 137, 56, 43114, 59144, 534352, 792703809 Solana, 8253038 Bitcoin, 728126428 Tron) or name (eth, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bnb, avalanche, linea, scroll, solana, bitcoin, tron).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: parallel fan-out across five bridges, an origin-receipt check, the fixed status vocabulary, and a UI obligation to render the `display` markdown with chan images. However, it omits latency/timeout behavior for a parallel multi-source call and what happens when a bridge API fails or rate-limits — meaningful gaps for an open-world aggregator.

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 purpose and kept to one dense paragraph, but the trailing 'How to combine this with the other tools' sentence spends a lot of words enumerating seven playbook workflow names that add little for this specific call.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns — and it does: status values done/pending/failed/refunded/not_found, destination tx, next-step guidance, and the display field. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret the result 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 50%, and the description fills the most important gap: `hash` is the SOURCE tx hash, not the destination. It also flags that Across specifically requires fromChainId, which the schema lists as optional, so the agent learns a conditional requirement the schema does not express.

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 — 'Diagnose a bridge/cross-chain transfer by source tx hash' — and enumerates exactly which protocols it queries (LI.FI, Across, Relay, deBridge DLN, THORChain) plus the origin receipt. That scope is distinct from generic siblings like tx_status, verify_tx, and explain_transaction.

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 'stuck transfer' framing plus the named 'bridge-stuck' playbook workflow tells the agent precisely the situation that selects this tool, and it routes the follow-up action to get_quote / swapUrl. It stops short of saying when to prefer tx_status or verify_tx instead, so the exclusion is implicit.

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

All SwapChan toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources