lightningprox-mcp

create_topup

Generates a Lightning invoice to buy a 30-day prepaid spend token (10–100,000 sats) for Claude/GPT access; pay it, then call get_token with the returned charge_id.

Instructions

Create a Lightning invoice to buy a LightningProx spend token (10 to 100,000 sats). After paying it, call get_token with the returned charge_id. Tokens last 30 days.

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_sats": "<amount_sats>"
    },
    "name": "create_topup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount_sats`	Yes	Amount in sats, 10 to 100,000.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: it only creates an invoice rather than charging, payment is a separate action, token lifetime is 30 days, and the returned charge_id feeds get_token. It omits invoice expiry window and failure/edge behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the action and amount range front-loaded, followed by the post-payment step and lifetime. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a one-parameter invoice-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers amount, purpose, follow-up call, and token duration — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps are invoice expiry and what the response field names are beyond charge_id.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description already states the amount and 10–100,000 sat range at 100% coverage. The description repeats the same range without adding unit quirks, precision rules, or boundary behavior, so baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a Lightning invoice") plus the exact asset being purchased (a LightningProx spend token) and the sat range. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_token and check_balance, which the workflow reference makes explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete next-step guidance: after paying the invoice, call get_token with the returned charge_id, which sequences the tool correctly. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., what to do if an invoice already exists or per-user limits), so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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

Deploy Server