MIDL MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

midl_bridge_btc_to_evm

Bridge BTC from Bitcoin to an EVM network. Deposit BTC to a multisig vault; validators process it to credit your EVM address.

Instructions

Bridge BTC from the Bitcoin layer to the EVM layer. Creates a deposit transaction that sends BTC to the TSS multisig, which validators process to credit your EVM address.

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": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "midl_bridge_btc_to_evm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Amount of BTC to bridge (e.g., "0.1" for 0.1 BTC, or "50000" for 50000 satoshis)
`unit`	No	Unit of the amount: "btc" or "satoshis"	btc

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context: creates a deposit transaction sending BTC to TSS multisig, then validators credit EVM address, revealing a two-step process beyond the annotation's binary flags.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity of cross-layer bridging and no output schema, the description explains the process (deposit to multisig, validator processing). It could mention expected return (e.g., transaction hash) but covers essential behavioral context.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, enums, and default (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool bridges BTC from Bitcoin to EVM layer, specifying the action ('bridge') and resources (BTC, EVM layer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like midl_bridge_evm_to_btc (reverse direction) and other bridge tools for different assets (ERC20, RUNE).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for bridging BTC to EVM but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., midl_bridge_evm_to_btc for reverse). No when-not or prerequisite conditions are provided.

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