Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omniroute-bridge-mcp

omniroute-bridge-mcp

Official
by c-viper-work
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

multi_wallet_gas_refuel

Read-onlyIdempotent

Quote native gas delivery for 1–20 recipients without broadcasting, preserving recipient order. Always show executeUrl to the user for 1-click browser wallet signing.

Instructions

Quote native gas delivery for 1–20 recipients without broadcasting, preserving recipient order. Always show executeUrl to the user for 1-click browser wallet signing.

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": {
      "fromChain": "<fromChain>",
      "targetChain": "<targetChain>",
      "amountPerWallet": "<amountPerWallet>",
      "recipients": "<recipients>"
    },
    "name": "multi_wallet_gas_refuel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromChainYesSupported chain slug, alias or numeric chain ID as a string (for example base, arb, solana, 8453).
fromTokenNoSource token symbol such as ETH, USDC or native; amounts are denominated in this token.
recipientsYesOrdered list of 1–20 destination addresses. Duplicate addresses intentionally receive multiple allocations.
targetChainYesSupported chain slug, alias or numeric chain ID as a string (for example base, arb, solana, 8453).
senderAddressNoReal sender address on the source chain. Omit only for a read-only preview that cannot be executed.
amountPerWalletYesPositive decimal source-token amount spent for EACH wallet, not the amount of destination gas.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that while adding real value: it clarifies that nothing is broadcast and that the result yields an executeUrl the agent must surface for signing. That return-value behavior is important since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing what the quote payload contains (fees, delivery estimates) or timing/expiry.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraints, followed by the one operational instruction that changes agent behavior. No filler or restated name/title.

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 quote-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key gap — that the response feeds a browser-signing flow via executeUrl — plus the non-broadcast guarantee. Missing is any indication of what the quote itself returns (amounts, fee breakdown, validity window), which would complete the picture.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (including the per-wallet denomination and senderAddress preview mode) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the recipient count and ordering constraint that the schema's recipients description also covers, adding no new parameter-level detail.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Quote native gas delivery') and scopes it precisely ('for 1–20 recipients without broadcasting, preserving recipient order'). It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the adjacent quote tool get_cross_chain_bridge_quote, leaving the gas-refuel vs bridge-quote distinction to be inferred from the resource noun.

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?

The second sentence gives a post-call workflow instruction (show executeUrl for browser wallet signing), which implies this is the quote step preceding an execution step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling quote tool as an alternative, and no stated prerequisites beyond the senderAddress hint in the schema.

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