MIDL MCP Server

Official

by midl-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

midl_transfer_rune

Destructive

Transfer runes to a Bitcoin address by specifying the rune ID, amount, and recipient address.

Instructions

Transfer Runes to another 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": {
      "runeId": "<runeId>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "toAddress": "<toAddress>"
    },
    "name": "midl_transfer_rune"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runeId`	Yes	Rune ID to transfer (e.g., "840000:1")
`amount`	Yes	Amount of runes to transfer
`toAddress`	Yes	Recipient Bitcoin address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, indicating state changes. The description 'Transfer Runes' aligns but adds no extra behavioral detail (e.g., fee requirements, confirmation handling).

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without any redundant or unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal but lacks completeness. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance) or post-transfer behavior (e.g., broadcast confirmation), which could help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 (transfer), resource (Runes), and destination (Bitcoin address). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'midl_transfer_evm' and 'midl_transfer_token' which handle different assets.

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 only implies usage for transferring Runes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bridging tools) or when not to use it.

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