Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

netfluid__bridge_blockchain

Creates a blockchain to blockchain bridge. Confirm (yes/no) before executing

Creates a blockchain to blockchain bridge. Only supports USDC transfers. Do not send any other tokens as these may be lost. @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application @param token: The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login @param wallet_fk: The wallet_fk provided by /access/login @param account_fk: The account_fk (this is a database ID (int) not an account address (str) and may not be 0) The account_fk that will use the bridge @param blockchain: The blockchain that will receive the transfer. Possible values "ethereum","solana","avalanche_c_chain" @param address: The address on the above blockchain that will receive the transfer @param alias: A descriptive name for this Bridge, can be anything, set by async default if none is provided. @param currency: The currency, possible values are usdc, usdt, eurc

@return: a json object

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aliasNo
tokenYes
addressYes
api_keyYes
currencyNo
wallet_fkYes
account_fkYes
blockchainYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: a required confirmation step, an asset restriction, and a loss warning ('these may be lost'). However it is internally inconsistent — the currency param lists usdc, usdt and eurc while the preamble says USDC only — leaving the true supported-asset set ambiguous, and it says nothing about irreversibility, timing or fees.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Creates a blockchain to blockchain bridge'), which is wasted space, and the @param block is dense. The safety restriction is front-loaded, which is good, but the repetition costs structure points.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical inputs and the asset-safety warning, but return values are dismissed with '@return: a json object' despite there being no output schema to fall back on, and no downstream identifiers or status behavior are described.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description does the heavy lifting and largely succeeds: it explains account_fk is a DB integer ID (not an address, not 0), enumerates blockchain values, and notes alias defaults asynchronously. The currency enumeration directly contradicts the USDC-only preamble, which blunts an otherwise strong effort.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a blockchain to blockchain bridge'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling bridge_list, bridge_delete and bridge_rename tools. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative ramp tools (bridge_on_ramp, bridge_off_ramp_sepa/ach_wire) so routing is left to inference from the name.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides a workflow instruction ('Confirm (yes/no) before executing') and an asset-scope rule ('Only supports USDC transfers'), which is real usage guidance. It stops short of saying when to choose this tool over the sibling on-ramp/off-ramp bridges or what prerequisites must be met.

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

All Netfluid toolsInspect
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