Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lightning Wallet MCP

Lightning Wallet MCP

by lightningfaucet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_deposit_invoice

Generate a Lightning invoice to deposit satoshis into your operator account. Specify the amount in satoshis to receive a payment request for funding.

Instructions

Create a Lightning invoice to fund your operator account. Pay this invoice to add sats to your balance.

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_sats": "<amount_sats>"
    },
    "name": "get_deposit_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amount_satsYesAmount in satoshis to deposit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.9

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description correctly indicates a creation action (mutation) and links it to funding the balance. However, it omits details such as idempotency, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with the core action. Efficient and to the point, though the naming mismatch slightly detracts.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose. However, it does not mention what the response contains (the invoice object) or clarify the difference from 'create_invoice', leaving the tool context incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the amount_sats parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the invoice is for depositing sats. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it creates an invoice to fund the operator account, but the name 'get_deposit_invoice' misleadingly suggests retrieval rather than creation. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_invoice', which may cause confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_invoice' or when not to use it. The agent lacks context to make an informed selection.

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