gittr-mcp

bountyCreateWithdraw

Creates a Lightning Network withdrawal for a bounty via LNURL-withdraw, specifying the issue ID and amount for payout.

Instructions

POST /api/bounty/create-withdraw — LNURL-withdraw for bounty flow

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "bountyCreateWithdraw"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`amount`	Yes
`issueId`	Yes
`bridgeUrl`	No
`lnbitsUrl`	No
`lnbitsAdminKey`	No
`lnbitsInvoiceKey`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose effects. It only states the endpoint and protocol; it does not explain side effects, auth requirements (despite lnbitsAdminKey/InvoiceKey in schema), or what happens when invoked.

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 description is extremely brief, but it under-specifies rather than being efficiently concise. It provides a bare endpoint reference without meaningful elaboration, so it feels incomplete rather than crisp.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The one-line descriptor cannot adequately convey the operation, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 7 parameters are undocumented; the description does not clarify the meaning of amount, issueId, or the various URLs/keys. The schema provides only names and required status, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the HTTP endpoint and the LNURL-withdraw mechanism, clearly indicating this tool creates a withdrawal for a bounty process. It has a specific verb (create-withdraw) and resource (bounty flow), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bountyClaimWithdraw.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bountyClaimWithdraw or createBountyInvoice. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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

Deploy Server