-
debridge-mcp
Server Details
deBridge MCP
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- debridge-finance/debridge-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 32
- Server Listing
- deBridge
Available Tools
5 toolscreate_txBInspect
Create a cross-chain swap transaction via the deBridge DLN protocol
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dstChainId | Yes | Destination chain ID | |
| srcChainId | Yes | Source chain ID | |
| srcChainTokenIn | Yes | Token address on source chain | |
| dstChainTokenOut | Yes | Token address on destination chain | |
| affiliateFeePercent | No | Affiliate fee percentage | |
| affiliateFeeRecipient | No | Wallet address to receive affiliate fees | |
| srcChainTokenInAmount | Yes | Amount in smallest units (wei, lamports) | |
| dstChainTokenOutAmount | No | Output amount or 'auto' for best quote | |
| prependOperatingExpenses | No | Whether to prepend estimated operating expenses to the input amount | |
| dstChainTokenOutRecipient | Yes | Wallet address on destination chain to receive tokens | |
| dstChainOrderAuthorityAddress | Yes | Address on destination chain authorized to manage the order | |
| srcChainOrderAuthorityAddress | Yes | Address on source chain authorized to manage the order |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only says 'create', which implies mutation. It omits critical behavioral details like side effects (e.g., gas fees, wallet approval) for a blockchain transaction, leaving the agent with little insight.
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?
Single sentence with no filler, efficiently communicates the tool's primary purpose, and is 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 complexity of a 12-parameter cross-chain swap transaction, the description is too brief; it lacks information about return values, error handling, or workflow steps, making it incomplete for effective use.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'create', but since the schema already covers parameter semantics, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool creates a cross-chain swap transaction via the deBridge DLN protocol, with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like transaction_same_chain_swap.
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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided; the description does not help differentiate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_instructionsAInspect
Returns the full guide for the deBridge MCP server. CALL THIS FIRST.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description accurately describes the tool's behavior (returns a guide) with no side effects. This is sufficient for a read-only, zero-parameter tool.
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. Directly states purpose and usage priority.
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?
Description is complete for a simple guide tool without output schema or parameters. Could possibly mention the format of the guide, but not necessary for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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?
Description clearly states it returns the full guide for the deBridge MCP server, using a specific verb and resource. It also adds a usage hint ('CALL THIS FIRST'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to call this tool first, providing clear usage context. No need for when-not or alternatives given the simple nature of the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_supported_chainsAInspect
List all blockchain networks supported by deBridge for cross-chain swaps
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only list operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or data freshness. Adequate for a trivial tool.
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?
A single sentence that fully communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is entirely sufficient to understand its functionality and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description succinctly covers what the tool returns.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('blockchain networks supported by deBridge for cross-chain swaps'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tx or transaction_same_chain_swap.
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?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple list tool, minimal guidance is acceptable but not provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_tokensAInspect
Search for tokens by name, symbol, or contract address in the deBridge token database
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by token name (partial, case-insensitive) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Token name, symbol, or contract address | |
| chainId | No | Filter by chain ID |
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description states it searches the deBridge database but omits details like read-only nature, result format, pagination, or rate limits. Basic disclosure but incomplete.
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?
Single sentence with verb, resource, and searchable fields. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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 core purpose but lacks output format, pagination, and limitations. Adequate for a simple search but not fully complete given no output schema.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds no additional meaning beyond them; baseline 3 for high 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?
Description clearly states verb 'search', resource 'tokens', and searchable fields (name, symbol, contract address). Distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with transactions and chains.
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?
Implied usage for token lookups; siblings are clearly different (transactions, instructions, chains). No explicit exclusions but context sufficiently separates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
transaction_same_chain_swapCInspect
Create a same-chain token swap transaction via deBridge
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | Yes | Chain ID (native or deBridge internal) | |
| tokenIn | Yes | Input token address | |
| slippage | No | Slippage tolerance or 'auto' | |
| tokenOut | Yes | Output token address | |
| senderAddress | No | Transaction submitter address | |
| tokenInAmount | Yes | Amount in smallest units | |
| tokenOutAmount | No | Expected output amount or 'auto' | |
| tokenOutRecipient | Yes | Address on the source chain to receive target tokens | |
| affiliateFeePercent | No | Affiliate fee percentage | |
| affiliateFeeRecipient | No | Wallet address to receive affiliate fees | |
| srcChainPriorityLevel | No | Priority level: 'normal' or 'aggressive' (default: 'normal') |
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the transaction is submitted or just prepared, gas costs, or any other behavioral details.
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?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Every part is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain how to construct the parameters, what the output looks like, or how to handle errors.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions; it simply restates the tool's purpose.
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 verb 'Create', the resource 'same-chain token swap transaction', and the platform 'via deBridge'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tokens (search) and create_tx (likely general transaction).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use conditions. Description only states what it does, not how to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
5 tool updates
- First observed
create_tx - First observed
get_instructions - First observed
get_supported_chains - First observed
search_tokens - First observed
transaction_same_chain_swap
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Li.Fi tools over MCP: cross-chain quotes, routes, execution status, chains, tokens, balances.
A2a Governance Bridge MCP Server by MEOK AI Labs
Related MCP Servers
- -
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP Foxxy Bridge is a one-to-many proxy for the Model Context Protocol (MCP). It lets you aggregate and route requests to multiple MCP servers through a single endpoint, so you can centralize configuration for all your MCP servers.7-
- MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creating cross-chain transactions, retrieving instructions, listing supported chains, searching tokens, and creating same-chain swaps. No overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_tx, get_instructions, get_supported_chains, search_tokens), but transaction_same_chain_swap is a noun phrase without a leading verb, breaking consistency.
Tool Count4/5
5 tools is a reasonable size for a cross-chain bridge server, covering essential functions without being too sparse or bloated.
Completeness3/5
The set covers core actions (create swap, list chains, search tokens) but lacks quote estimation or transaction status checking, which are common for such servers.