MIDL MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

midl_bridge_erc20_to_rune

Destructive

Bridge ERC20 tokens back to their native Bitcoin Rune. After validator confirmation, the Runes are credited to your Bitcoin address.

Instructions

Bridge an ERC20 token back to its native Rune on Bitcoin (withdrawal). The Runes will be credited to your Bitcoin address after validator confirmation.

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": {
      "runeId": "<runeId>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "midl_bridge_erc20_to_rune"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runeId`	Yes	Rune ID to withdraw to (e.g., "840000:1")
`amount`	Yes	Amount of ERC20 tokens to bridge back to Rune

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true. Description adds valuable context: 'after validator confirmation' and 'credited to your Bitcoin address', explaining the outcome and delay.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the primary action.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the outcome and process. No gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 action (bridge/withdraw), direction (ERC20 to Rune), and context (withdrawal). It distinguishes from its reverse sibling tool.

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 withdrawal but does not explicitly guide when to use this versus other bridging tools. The sibling list includes reverse operations, but no proactive guidance.

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