Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netfluid

by io.netfluid.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

netfluid__bridge_list

Returns bridges based on the transfer_type, a bridge is either an "on-ramp" (also called a "virtual account" and a funding source), an "off-ramp" (USDC transfer to a fiat bank account) or a "blockchain" (USDC transfer between blockchains). Bridges are only available on blockchain accounts

Returns bridges based on the transfer_type, a bridge is either an on-ramp, an off-ramp or a blockchain. Bridge on-ramps are also called "virtual accounts" @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 (this is a database ID (int) not an account address (str) and may not be 0) @param transfer_type: The type of bridge, possible values are "off-ramp" for USDC and USDt transfers to SEPA/ACH bank accounts, "blockchain" for USDC cross blockchain transfers, "on-ramp" for FIAT deposits into virtual accounts (that instantly arrive as USDC)

@return: a json object

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYes
api_keyYes
wallet_fkYes
account_fkYes
transfer_typeYes

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: bridges only exist on blockchain accounts, and account_fk 'may not be 0'. However it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, filtering defaults, or what the returned JSON contains beyond 'a json object'.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The opening sentence is duplicated almost verbatim, account_fk's explanation is pasted twice inside itself, and the @return is the useless 'a json object'. The content is buried in redundant prose rather than front-loaded cleanly.

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 a 5-required-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters and preconditions adequately, but its treatment of the return payload is non-existent ('a json object'), and with no output schema that gap is on the description.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it largely does, documenting all five parameters via @param tags, including the transfer_type value set (off-ramp/blockchain/on-ramp) that the schema does not enumerate. It loses points for tautological phrasing (account_fk's description is repeated verbatim) and thin docs on api_key/token.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Returns bridges') and even defines the domain vocabulary (on-ramp/virtual account, off-ramp, blockchain). It does not, however, distinguish this listing tool from siblings like bridge_blockchain, bridge_on_ramp, bridge_off_ramp_sepa, or bridge_rename, so the agent gets no help telling 'list' from 'create/rename'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The only contextual hint is the constraint 'Bridges are only available on blockchain accounts', which is a precondition rather than usage routing.

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