Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bitrovas-psbtcheck

bitrovas-psbtcheck

by bitrovas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

psbt_check_result

Retrieves the result of a submitted PSBT check after invoice payment using the check ID, optionally waiting for completion and accepting a payment preimage.

Instructions

Holt das Ergebnis eines PSBT-Checks nach Zahlung der Rechnung (check_id aus psbt_check).

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": {
      "check_id": "<check_id>"
    },
    "name": "psbt_check_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
check_idYes
preimageNooptionaler Zahlungsnachweis
wait_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about blocking/polling behavior implied by wait_seconds (default 60), what happens on timeout, or what the result looks like. Only the payment sequencing hint is added.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One compact sentence with the dependency front-loaded in parentheses. Efficient, though the parenthetical placement makes the precondition easy to skim past.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than this: it never explains the polling/wait semantics, what a successful check result contains, or failure modes. The essential happy-path timing is there, but the agent lacks enough to invoke it correctly in edge cases.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, and the description compensates only for check_id (its origin in psbt_check). preimage is documented in the schema itself, but wait_seconds — clearly behaviorally significant given its 60-second default — is unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ("Holt") and resource ("Ergebnis eines PSBT-Checks") and explicitly ties check_id back to the sibling tool psbt_check, which separates it from that sibling. It stops short of saying what the returned result actually represents (a payment confirmation status?), leaving a small gap.

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?

Gives a clear timing precondition — call this after the invoice has been paid — and names psbt_check as the source of the required check_id. It does not address edge cases such as what to do if the check is not yet paid or whether to call repeatedly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools