Skip to main content
Glama
lnfi-network

RGB Lightning Network MCP Server

by lnfi-network

rgb_pay_lightning_invoice

Process Lightning Network payments by submitting a BOLT11 invoice string. This tool enables settlement of Lightning invoices through the RGB Lightning Network MCP Server.

Instructions

Pay a Lightning Network invoice

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bolt11YesBOLT11 invoice string

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler function that executes the payment of the Lightning invoice by calling the RGB API client wrapper's payInvoice method and formats the response or error.
    async ({ bolt11 }) => {
      try {
        const result = await rgbClient.payInvoice(bolt11);
        return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
      } catch (error) {
        const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
        return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${errorMessage}` }], isError: true };
      }
    }
  • Zod input schema defining the bolt11 parameter for the tool.
    {
      bolt11: z.string().describe('BOLT11 invoice string'),
    },
  • src/server.ts:204-219 (registration)
    Registration of the rgb_pay_lightning_invoice tool on the MCP server, including name, description, schema, and inline handler.
    server.tool(
      'rgb_pay_lightning_invoice',
      'Pay a Lightning Network invoice',
      {
        bolt11: z.string().describe('BOLT11 invoice string'),
      },
      async ({ bolt11 }) => {
        try {
          const result = await rgbClient.payInvoice(bolt11);
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
        } catch (error) {
          const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${errorMessage}` }], isError: true };
        }
      }
    );
  • Helper method in RGBApiClientWrapper that wraps the underlying SDK call to pay a Lightning invoice.
    async payInvoice(invoice: string) {
      return await this.client.lightning.payInvoice({ invoice });
    }
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. It states the action ('Pay') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive/mutative operation (likely yes, but unconfirmed), what permissions or authentication are required, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success (e.g., transaction confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Pay') and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient for an agent to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity of a payment operation (likely mutative and financial), the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimalism, this is incomplete. The description doesn't cover behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that could involve fund transfers and network interactions.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'bolt11' parameter fully documented as a 'BOLT11 invoice string'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Pay') and the resource ('a Lightning Network invoice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rgb_create_lightning_invoice' (creation vs. payment) and 'rgb_send_assets' (asset transfer vs. invoice payment), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description itself.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a funded wallet), exclusions (e.g., invalid or expired invoices), or related tools like 'rgb_decode_lightning_invoice' for verification, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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