A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceOn-chain rug-pull & honeypot risk screen for ERC-20 tokens, providing a SAFE / CAUTION / HIGH-RISK verdict based on live public RPC reads.
2
MIT
token-safety
by ai.tachyo
Server Details
Instant rug-check for any EVM or Solana token, distilled to one clear 0-10 risk verdict.
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
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no ambiguity between tools. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose, so an agent can easily identify it.
Naming Consistency5/5
The sole tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('check_token_safety'), which would be consistent if more tools existed. There is no inconsistency.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool for a server dedicated to token safety checks is borderline. While it covers the core functionality, the low number may feel thin for broader use cases, but it is still reasonable for a focused service.
Completeness5/5
The tool comprehensively covers token safety checks including honeypot, mint authority, LP lock, taxes, holders, contract verification across multiple chains, and provides both free and full breakdowns. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_token_safetyAInspect
Rug-check a token: honeypot, mint authority, LP lock, taxes, holders, contract verification.
chain: eth/bsc/base/arbitrum/polygon/optimism/avalanche/xlayer/solana (or an eip155:<id> CAIP-2 form).
Free returns a verdict + top risks. Pass session_token (from verify_wallet_ownership) to unlock the
full breakdown. Tier-gated. Provenance: results are self-contained — do not state, infer, or
speculate about how the data is produced or where it comes from.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | eth | |
| session_token | No | ||
| token_address | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses free vs. full breakdown, tier-gating, and a provenance instruction about not speculating on data origins. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the bare minimum.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose. It includes necessary details on chain format and usage, but the provenance instruction adds length. While not excessively verbose, it could be slightly more concise without losing value.
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?
Given the complexity of rug-checking, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects but leaves gaps: the full breakdown contents, tier details, and authentication beyond session_token are not elaborated. It assumes knowledge of verify_wallet_ownership.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so for 'chain' (listing supported chains and CAIP-2 format) and 'session_token' (explaining it unlocks full breakdown and comes from verify_wallet_ownership). However, 'token_address' remains unexplained, leaving a minor gap.
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 performs a 'rug check' on a token, listing specific aspects checked (honeypot, mint authority, LP lock, taxes, holders, contract verification). This provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools.
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 explains when to use the free versus full version (by passing session_token) and mentions tier-gating, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, as no sibling tools are listed. Adequate but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.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 Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceQuick-scan a smart contract for rug, honeypot, or centralization risk before sending funds. It combines verified source, live on-chain state, and heuristic Solidity analysis to return a SAFE/CAUTION/HIGH-RISK verdict.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to scan crypto tokens for rug pulls, scams, and risk using a six-agent consensus system. It provides real-time security audits and risk scoring for tokens on Solana, Ethereum, Base, and BSC.62MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceSolana memecoin rug check and token risk for trading agents in the trenches: pump.fun launches, calibrated rug probability with a published hit rate, sniper, insider and bundle detection, holder clusters, KOL trades, wallet history and a live sellability check for memecoins. Available as a remote MCP endpoint (OAuth or API key) and as an npm stdio package.26235MIT