Free Lightning faucet MCP — agents register, get an inbound channel, bootstrap an LDK node.
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.
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: lqwd_register creates an account, lqwd_check_balance retrieves account profile info, and lqwd_check_channel_status reports channel state. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
All tool names follow the same pattern: lowercase snake_case with an lqwd_ prefix and a verb_noun structure. This is perfectly consistent and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the set is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear, necessary function for the server's purpose of registration and status checking. It fits within the typical 3-15 tool range and feels neither bloated nor sparse.
The tooling covers the full core workflow: register, check account, check channel status. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update node_uri or revoke an API key, but these are not critical for the stated scope and are easily worked around.
lqwd_check_balanceCCheck 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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description describes a read-only check operation ('Check', 'Returns'), but the annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, directly contradicting the described behavior. This is a serious inconsistency that would confuse an agent.
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 sentences: it front-loads the purpose and return values, then provides necessary authentication instructions. No unnecessary information.
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?
While the description covers purpose, return values, and authentication, the annotation contradiction leaves the tool's actual behavior ambiguous. Without an output schema, the description should also clarify any side effects or error conditions, but it does not. This gap lowers completeness.
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 tool has no parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. Baseline of 4 applies since 0 params.
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 'Check your LQWD agent account profile' and lists the returned fields (tier, status, registration date). It is specific about the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like lqwd_check_channel_status or 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It mentions authentication and that it's always free, but does not explain when to choose this over lqwd_check_channel_status or lqwd_register.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lqwd_check_channel_statusACheck 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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description characterizes this as a status check with no mention of side effects or destructive behavior. This is a direct contradiction between description and annotation. The added auth context does not compensate; the contradiction makes the tool's safety profile ambiguous.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: the core action, return contents, precondition, no-grant response, cost, and authentication method. Information is front-loaded with the main purpose and flows logically 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?
For a 0-parameter tool without an output schema, the description does well by enumerating return values and explaining authentication and preconditions. However, it fails to reconcile the destructiveHint annotation, leaving a major gap in the tool's behavioral profile. The contradiction means the description is not fully trustworthy or complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and the description correctly imposes no parameter expectations. While it doesn't explain the auth header in parameter terms, that is appropriately addressed as a behavioral note rather than a schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check the status of an inbound channel LQWD') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on channel grant status rather than balance or registration. It also lists the specific return fields (state, funding txid, balances), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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?
It clearly states when the tool is meaningful ('only if you registered with pubkey+node_uri') and what happens without a grant ('no active grant' response), plus notes it is always free. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is enough to infer when to use it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lqwd_registerARegister 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavior beyond annotations: the API key is returned, the inbound channel is one-time and part of a tier-1 faucet grant, the operation is asynchronous with a polling URL, and no authentication is required. It does not mention the destructive hint, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either, and the creation semantics are evident.
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 sentences, front-loads the primary action, and every clause earns its place. It states purpose, returns, optionality, free/no-auth, and the joint requirement without unnecessary detail.
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?
With no output schema, the description fully covers return values (API key, channel_granted, next_steps.channel_status_url) and explains the asynchronous polling flow. It also clarifies the optional use case (Lightning node) and prerequisites, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.
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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that `pubkey` and `node_uri` must be supplied together to receive a channel, and that `node_uri` requires a publicly reachable port. This clarifies dependency beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Register a new AI agent account') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools (lqwd_check_balance, lqwd_check_channel_status) by stating it returns an API key and optionally triggers an inbound channel. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly states 'this tool is how you GET your API key' and gives a clear rule for the inbound channel: pass `pubkey` AND `node_uri` together. It also notes that it's always free and requires no authentication. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context implies alternatives are the read-only check tools.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!