debridge-mcp

create_tx

Create a cross-chain swap transaction via the deBridge DLN protocol

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": {
      "srcChainId": "<srcChainId>",
      "srcChainTokenIn": "<srcChainTokenIn>",
      "srcChainTokenInAmount": "<srcChainTokenInAmount>",
      "dstChainId": "<dstChainId>",
      "dstChainTokenOut": "<dstChainTokenOut>",
      "dstChainTokenOutRecipient": "<dstChainTokenOutRecipient>",
      "srcChainOrderAuthorityAddress": "<srcChainOrderAuthorityAddress>",
      "dstChainOrderAuthorityAddress": "<dstChainOrderAuthorityAddress>"
    },
    "name": "create_tx"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dstChainId`	Yes	Destination chain ID
`srcChainId`	Yes	Source chain ID
`srcChainTokenIn`	Yes	Token address on source chain
`dstChainTokenOut`	Yes	Token address on destination chain
`affiliateFeePercent`	No	Affiliate fee percentage
`affiliateFeeRecipient`	No	Wallet address to receive affiliate fees
`srcChainTokenInAmount`	Yes	Amount in smallest units (wei, lamports)
`dstChainTokenOutAmount`	No	Output amount or 'auto' for best quote
`prependOperatingExpenses`	No	Whether to prepend estimated operating expenses to the input amount
`dstChainTokenOutRecipient`	Yes	Wallet address on destination chain to receive tokens
`dstChainOrderAuthorityAddress`	Yes	Address on destination chain authorized to manage the order
`srcChainOrderAuthorityAddress`	Yes	Address on source chain authorized to manage the order

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedApr 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description only says 'create', which implies mutation. It omits critical behavioral details like side effects (e.g., gas fees, wallet approval) for a blockchain transaction, leaving the agent with little insight.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, efficiently communicates the tool's primary purpose, and is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a 12-parameter cross-chain swap transaction, the description is too brief; it lacks information about return values, error handling, or workflow steps, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'create', but since the schema already covers parameter semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a cross-chain swap transaction via the deBridge DLN protocol, with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like transaction_same_chain_swap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided; the description does not help differentiate usage scenarios.

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

All debridge-mcp tools Inspect

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.