LQWD Gateway
Server Details
Free Lightning faucet MCP — agents register, get an inbound channel, bootstrap an LDK node.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: register gets an API key, check_balance shows account profile, check_channel_status shows channel state. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the lqwd_ prefix: lqwd_register, lqwd_check_balance, lqwd_check_channel_status. No variation or inconsistency.
Three tools precisely cover the core workflow of registration and status checking. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The tool set covers registration, account balance, and channel status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to close a channel or update account info), but the essential lifecycle for an AI agent is present.
Available Tools
3 toolslqwd_check_balanceADestructiveInspect
Check your LQWD agent account profile. Returns your account tier, status, and registration date. Always free. Authenticate by sending the HTTP header Authorization: Bearer <your_api_key> on MCP requests (where is the lqwd_... key returned by lqwd_register).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims a read-only check operation, but annotations include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. The description does not clarify the behavioral discrepancy or add any additional behavioral context.
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?
Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, return values, and authentication. Every sentence is essential, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality and authentication. However, the contradiction with annotations significantly undermines completeness, and the return structure is only partially described.
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?
The input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the required authentication header, though this is not a formal parameter.
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 clearly states the action ('Check') and the resource ('your LQWD agent account profile'), and specifies the return values (account tier, status, registration date). It distinguishes from siblings through unique functionality.
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?
The description provides authentication details but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (lqwd_check_channel_status, lqwd_register). No explicit when-not or alternative comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lqwd_check_channel_statusADestructiveInspect
Check the status of an inbound channel LQWD granted to your node during registration. Returns the current state (pending, active, failed), funding txid (when confirmed), and balances. Only meaningful if you registered with pubkey+node_uri; agents without a channel grant will get a 'no active grant' response. Always free. Authenticate by sending the HTTP header Authorization: Bearer <your_api_key> on MCP requests (where is the lqwd_... key returned by lqwd_register).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts the annotations: annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description states 'Always free' and describes a read-only status check, implying no destructive behavior. This inconsistency undermines agent trust.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately providing key details. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (state, funding txid, balances) and the error case. It also includes authentication instructions, making it complete for agent use.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, and the description confirms no input parameters are needed, relying on authentication context. Coverage is 100% and no additional parameter info is required.
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 explicitly states the tool checks the status of an inbound LQWD channel grant, listing returned fields (state, funding txid, balances) and conditions. It clearly distinguishes from siblings: lqwd_check_balance and lqwd_register.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use (if registered with pubkey+node_uri) and mentions that agents without a grant will get a 'no active grant' response. It also notes authentication via Authorization header. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the constraints are implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lqwd_registerADestructiveInspect
Register a new AI agent account with LQWD. Returns an API key and, when you supply a Lightning node's pubkey + node_uri, a one-time inbound channel on mainnet as part of the tier-1 faucet grant. Always free; no authentication required — this tool is how you GET your API key. To receive an inbound channel from LQWD, pass pubkey AND node_uri together.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Agent name (1-100 characters). Choose a descriptive name for your agent. | |
| pubkey | No | Optional. Your LND node's public key (66-char hex string). When provided alongside node_uri, LQWD opens a one-time inbound channel to your node as part of the tier-1 faucet grant. Omit if you don't run a Lightning node. | |
| node_uri | No | Optional. Your node's public URI in the form `pubkey@host:port` (port 9735 must be publicly reachable). Required alongside pubkey. The response will include `channel_granted` and `next_steps.channel_status_url` so you can poll the async open. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate mutability. It adds value by explaining the free nature, lack of authentication, and conditional channel creation. However, it does not discuss idempotency issues (e.g., re-registration behavior) even though idempotentHint=false.
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 concise: two sentences plus a condition, all front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and three parameters, the description covers key aspects: what it does, what it returns (API key, optional channel), and prerequisites. It could mention non-idempotency but overall is sufficient for a registration tool.
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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds functional context by explaining the condition for receiving a channel (both pubkey and node_uri together), which is not fully captured in the schema's individual descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Register a new AI agent account with LQWD.' It specifies the resource (AI agent account), the verb (register), and additional effects (returns API key, optionally creates inbound channel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lqwd_check_balance and lqwd_check_channel_status.
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?
The description provides clear usage context: it's how to get an API key, it's free, and no authentication is required. It also specifies that to receive an inbound channel, both pubkey and node_uri must be provided together. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!