Skip to main content
Glama
lnfi-network

RGB Lightning Network MCP Server

by lnfi-network

rgb_list_lightning_channels

Retrieve a list of active Lightning Network channels to monitor channel status, capacity, and connectivity for managing Bitcoin and RGB asset transactions.

Instructions

List Lightning Network channels

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.ts:221-234 (registration)
    Registers the 'rgb_list_lightning_channels' MCP tool with empty input schema. The handler fetches Lightning channels via rgbClient.listChannels() and returns formatted JSON or error.
    server.tool(
      'rgb_list_lightning_channels',
      'List Lightning Network channels',
      {},
      async ({}) => {
        try {
          const channels = await rgbClient.listChannels();
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(channels, null, 2) }] };
        } catch (error) {
          const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${errorMessage}` }], isError: true };
        }
      }
    );
  • Handler method in RGBApiClientWrapper that implements the core logic by delegating to the underlying RGB API SDK's lightning.listChannels().
    async listChannels() {
      return await this.client.lightning.listChannels();
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action without details. It doesn't cover aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with network data.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'list' entails (e.g., format, scope like active vs. all channels) or behavioral traits, which could be important for Lightning Network operations. With no annotations to fill gaps, the description should do more to be fully 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't explicitly state there are no parameters (e.g., 'with no filters'), slightly missing an opportunity for clarity. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('Lightning Network channels'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rgb_list_assets' or 'rgb_list_swaps' beyond the resource name, which prevents 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for listing channels (e.g., for monitoring or selection), or comparison to other list tools like 'rgb_list_assets', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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