MIDL MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

midl_bridge_evm_to_btc

Withdraw BTC from the EVM layer back to the Bitcoin layer by creating a withdrawal transaction that validators process to send BTC to your specified Bitcoin address.

Instructions

Withdraw BTC from the EVM layer back to the Bitcoin layer. Creates a withdrawal transaction that validators process to send BTC to your specified Bitcoin 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>",
      "btcAddress": "<btcAddress>"
    },
    "name": "midl_bridge_evm_to_btc"
  }
}

Input Schema

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`btcAddress`	Yes	Bitcoin address to receive the withdrawn BTC

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds validators processing context but lacks details on fees, processing time, or permissions.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with key action and outcome, no fluff.

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?

Covers basic purpose and parameters but no output format, error handling, or transaction lifecycle details for a bridge operation.

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% and description only reiterates parameter names without adding new constraints or usage nuances beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Withdraw BTC from EVM to Bitcoin' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing from sibling tools like midl_bridge_btc_to_evm.

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?

Implied purpose by describing withdrawal direction, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance for alternative bridges like erc20-to-rune.

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