Skip to main content
Glama
lnfi-network

RGB Lightning Network MCP Server

by lnfi-network

rgb_get_node_status

Retrieve current status and uptime information for your RGB Lightning Network node to monitor operational health and connectivity.

Instructions

Get RGB node status and uptime information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.ts:35-48 (registration)
    Registers the 'rgb_get_node_status' MCP tool with empty input schema and an inline handler function that invokes rgbClient.getNodeStatus() and formats the response.
    server.tool(
      'rgb_get_node_status',
      'Get RGB node status and uptime information',
      {},
      async ({}) => {
        try {
          const status = await rgbClient.getNodeStatus();
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(status, null, 2) }] };
        } catch (error) {
          const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${errorMessage}` }], isError: true };
        }
      }
    );
  • Core implementation of getNodeStatus in RGBApiClientWrapper: fetches node state from the underlying SDK client and maps numeric state to human-readable status, with placeholder uptime.
    async getNodeStatus() {
      const state = await this.client.node.getNodeState();
      return { 
        status: state === 4 ? 'SERVER_ACTIVE' : state === 1 ? 'LOCKED' : 'NON_EXISTING',
        uptime: 0 // Not available in SDK
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs cached data, or what format the status information takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is perfectly concise at 7 words, front-loading the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, and there's zero waste or redundancy. This is an excellent example of efficient documentation for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete. While it states what information is retrieved, it doesn't clarify the scope (e.g., current node vs historical uptime) or format of the returned data. For a status-checking tool with no structured output documentation, additional context would be helpful.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('RGB node status and uptime information'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'rgb_get_node_info', which appears to be a similar status/information retrieval tool, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'rgb_get_node_info' and 'rgb_get_network_info' that likely retrieve related information, the agent must guess which tool is appropriate for specific status queries. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lnfi-network/rgb-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server