FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_bridge

Propose a Fusion+ or deBridge cross-chain swap. FortFi resolves chain-specific verified token contracts from sellSymbol/buySymbol; optional token addresses are mismatch assertions, never routing overrides. Inline quote by default, or use previewQuoteId for two-step review. Agent wallets execute on confirm_proposal. API keys on a passkey account cannot bridge: this returns OWNER_PASSKEY_REQUIRED, and the owner bridges in the FortFi app with their passkey (preview_bridge_quote still works).

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": {
      "fromWalletId": "<fromWalletId>",
      "toWalletId": "<toWalletId>",
      "sellSymbol": "<sellSymbol>",
      "buySymbol": "<buySymbol>",
      "amountUsd": "<amountUsd>"
    },
    "name": "propose_bridge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amountUsd`	Yes	Bridge amount in USD
`buySymbol`	Yes	Buy token symbol
`sellSymbol`	Yes	Sell token symbol
`toWalletId`	Yes	Destination wallet id (different chain)
`fromWalletId`	Yes	Source wallet id
`previewQuoteId`	No	Optional — from preview_bridge_quote for explicit quote review before propose
`buyTokenAddress`	No	Optional expected destination token contract; proposal fails if it differs from FortFi's verified chain resolution
`sellTokenAddress`	No	Optional expected source token contract; proposal fails if it differs from FortFi's verified chain resolution

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it clarifies that this proposes rather than executes, that agent execution happens on confirm_proposal, that passkey/API-key accounts cannot bridge, and that token addresses are mismatch assertions rather than routing overrides. It leaves some secondary gaps, such as quote expiry, fee/slippage handling, and what a successful proposal returns, but the critical behavior is disclosed.

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 dense but well structured, with purpose and routing semantics front-loaded and no wasted sentences. Each clarification, including the passkey-account limitation, earns its place by preventing a likely misuse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex cross-chain proposal tool with eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, auth restriction, error case, and token-address semantics. It is not fully exhaustive about success responses, quote expiry, or downstream confirm_proposal behavior, but it is complete enough for correct invocation and routing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema for token-related parameters: sellSymbol/buySymbol drive verified chain-specific contract resolution, while sellTokenAddress/buyTokenAddress are explicitly mismatch assertions, not overrides. It also explains previewQuoteId as an optional two-step review link, though it does not add much detail for the wallet-id parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Propose a Fusion+ or deBridge cross-chain swap.' The cross-chain scope and explicit mention of confirm_proposal clearly distinguish it from same-chain swap siblings such as propose_swap and make the action legible without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit workflow guidance: inline quote by default, or previewQuoteId for two-step review, with preview_bridge_quote named as the source. It also states the passkey-account exclusion, the OWNER_PASSKEY_REQUIRED outcome, the FortFi app alternative, and that agent wallets execute on confirm_proposal.

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

All FortFi Treasury 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.

Resources

Need Help?