lightning-mcp

Pay Lightning Address

pay_lightning_address

Send satoshis to a Lightning address by resolving user@domain.com, creating an invoice, and paying it in one step.

Instructions

Pay a Lightning address (user@domain.com format). Resolves the address, creates an invoice, and pays it.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "amountSats": "<amountSats>"
    },
    "name": "pay_lightning_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	Yes	Lightning address (e.g. user@getalby.com)
`maxSats`	No	Maximum sats safety limit
`amountSats`	Yes	Amount in satoshis to send

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the three-step internal flow (resolve, create invoice, pay), but this is a financial mutation tool and it says nothing about irreversibility, whether maxSats is enforced before signing, or what happens on failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action; every clause adds information about the mechanics.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is only marginally sufficient for a payment tool: it explains the flow but omits failure behavior, safety-limit enforcement, and result expectations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the address format already documented in the schema and adds no detail on how maxSats interacts with amountSats.

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 ('Pay a Lightning address') and even outlines the mechanism (resolves, creates invoice, pays). However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling pay_addresses, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 indication of when to use this versus pay_invoice, pay_addresses, or resolve_lightning_address. With several payment-adjacent siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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

Deploy Server