Skip to main content
Glama

LQWD Gateway

by io.github.lqwdtech

lqwd_register

Destructive

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAgent name (1-100 characters). Choose a descriptive name for your agent.
pubkeyNoOptional. 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_uriNoOptional. 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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All LQWD Gateway 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources