Skip to main content
Glama
lnfi-network

RGB Lightning Network MCP Server

by lnfi-network

rgb_list_transactions

Retrieve a list of on-chain Bitcoin transactions to track payment history and monitor network activity through the RGB Lightning Network MCP Server.

Instructions

List on-chain transactions

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.ts:137-150 (registration)
    Registration of the 'rgb_list_transactions' MCP tool with empty input schema and inline handler that lists on-chain transactions using rgbClient.listTransactions() and returns formatted JSON or error.
    server.tool(
      'rgb_list_transactions',
      'List on-chain transactions',
      {},
      async ({}) => {
        try {
          const transactions = await rgbClient.listTransactions();
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(transactions, null, 2) }] };
        } catch (error) {
          const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${errorMessage}` }], isError: true };
        }
      }
    );
  • Inline handler function executing the tool logic: calls rgbClient.listTransactions(), stringifies result as text content, handles errors.
    async ({}) => {
      try {
        const transactions = await rgbClient.listTransactions();
        return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(transactions, null, 2) }] };
      } catch (error) {
        const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
        return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${errorMessage}` }], isError: true };
      }
    }
  • Supporting method in RGBApiClientWrapper class that wraps and calls the underlying SDK client.onchain.listTransactions() method.
    async listTransactions() {
      return await this.client.onchain.listTransactions();
    }
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. 'List on-chain transactions' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify critical details like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes filtering options, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves important behavioral traits unclear.

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, efficient phrase ('List on-chain transactions') that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does in minimal language, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex transaction data. It doesn't explain what 'on-chain transactions' entails (e.g., format, scope, or limitations), leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's behavior fully. This is inadequate for a tool with no structured support.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information is required beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List on-chain transactions' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('on-chain transactions'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rgb_list_assets' or 'rgb_list_swaps' beyond specifying the transaction type, 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. With sibling tools like 'rgb_list_assets' and 'rgb_list_swaps' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for general transaction listing, specific asset-related transactions, or other contexts. The lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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