MIDL MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

midl_transfer_token

Destructive

Transfer ERC20 tokens by specifying the token contract address, recipient address, and amount in a human-readable format.

Instructions

Transfer ERC20 tokens to another 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": {
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "midl_transfer_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tokenAddress`	Yes	ERC20 token contract address
`to`	Yes	Recipient address
`amount`	Yes	Amount to transfer (human-readable, e.g., "100")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., gas costs, approval requirements). Minimal added value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, 6 words – highly concise. However, could include more useful information without becoming lengthy. Still effectively front-loaded.

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 number of sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. Context is incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 states 'Transfer ERC20 tokens to another address,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like midl_transfer_evm (native coin) and bridge tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as midl_transfer_evm or bridge tools. The description fails to provide context for tool selection.

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