A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceSolana token risk-scoring MCP server for AI trading agents — 0-100 safety score, on-chain insider wallet cluster detection, mint/freeze authority checks, and historical risk data via 3 tools.
10
3
MIT
cabal-hunter
Server Details
Solana pre-trade safety for AI agents: cabal, bundle, dump, deployer & honeypot in one 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
- Repository
- paulf280-ui/solana-safe-sniper-mcp-template
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- Cabal-Hunter
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_cabal_riskAInspect
Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint: is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity? Every flag links to its on-chain evidence tx.
AFTER YOU BUY: POST /api/watch {mint, webhook_url} with an X-API-Key (a free key is enough) and we push you an alert the moment a coordinated dump or liquidity drain starts on that token — carrying the same on-chain evidence. This scan is a BUY check; a watch is a HOLD check, and a holder needs the second one continuously. GET/DELETE /api/watch manage your own.
Layers, ordered by STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE (not marketing):
HOLDER CONCENTRATION — what share one wallet actually controls (
top_holder_pct). A single wallet that can crater the price is the most basic rug vector, and it needs no coordination at all. IMPORTANT: we count only REAL wallets. LP pools, locked/vesting supply and other program-owned accounts are excluded and labelled, never scored as a whale — and supply comes from getTokenSupply, not an estimate. Tools that skip this report a locked-supply token as '65% one wallet'. Our numbers reconcile with GMGN's circulating top-10.SAME-BLOCK BUNDLES — holders whose token accounts were created in the EXACT same block: a Jito-bundled multi-wallet launch.
time_sync: true.COORDINATED DUMP — ≥2 holders each selling ≥25% of their bag in the same block: a cabal exiting in real time.
coordinated_exit: true, sold_pct.HONEYPOT / AUTHORITY TRAPS (Solana-native) — live freeze authority, un-revoked mint authority, Token-2022 transfer-fee / transfer-hook / permanent-delegate traps. Answers: CAN you actually sell this token?
DEV TRACK RECORD — the creator resolved on-chain plus their full launch history WITH the peak market cap each past token hit, so a dead-count can't hide a pump-and-dump. Covers ANY Solana venue: pump.fun, Raydium, Orca, Meteora, PumpSwap. A launch counts only where the transaction actually CREATED the mint, so re-minting supply of an existing token is never miscounted as a launch. reputation (SERIAL_RUGGER / DEAD_ON_ARRIVAL / MIXED / PROVEN) + best_peak_usd, pump_and_dumps count; paid tier adds launches[] (peak_mcap_usd, now_mcap_usd, drawdown, status per launch). 'Ran to $728k, now dust' = this dev has dumped six figures on holders before. Still CAPPED: peak history is evidence, never softens the score. READ deployer.verdict CAREFULLY — two values mean opposite things: FIRST_LAUNCH = we walked the history and found no earlier tokens. UNKNOWN = the history could NOT be established. That is not evidence of anything and must never be treated as a clean record.
FUNDING-CLUSTER TRACE — top holders walked back to a shared funding wallet. A real capability, listed last on purpose: on our own sample it produced no verified detections once infrastructure (curve PDAs, token accounts) was correctly excluded. Treat it as supporting evidence.
Returns risk (CLEAN|MEDIUM|HIGH), cabal_score 0–100, top_holder_pct, cluster
breakdown with evidence_txs[], holder map, deployer verdict, honeypot_risk,
plus wallets_checked / scan_complete / degraded so YOUR agent can apply its
own risk tolerance instead of inheriting ours. If we cannot verify something,
we say so (degraded: true) rather than returning a confident 'clean'.
COST: first 250 scans/month FREE — no signup, no API key. After that $0.001 USDC per scan. Every scan is a live on-chain trace, not cached data. Two ways to pay, no signup or card: (1) $9/month UNLIMITED (fair use, 50k/mo) — best for 24/7 bots; or prepaid pay-as-you-go at $0.001/scan (any amount) — POST the tx to /api/buy-key, then send header X-API-Key; or (2) per-call via x402 (X-Payment-Signature header). Full terms: GET /api/info.
Typical response time: <100ms for pre-indexed tokens (most graduated pump.fun mints are already cached). A token we have never seen runs the full live on-chain trace and takes 15-20s — set your client timeout to at least 30s or you will abandon a scan that was about to succeed.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mintAddress | Yes | The Solana mint address of the token to audit (base58, 32–44 chars) | |
| pairCreatedAt | No | Optional: DexScreener pairCreatedAt timestamp in milliseconds. Speeds up analysis when provided. |
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses that scans are live on-chain traces, that `degraded: true` is returned when verification fails, that UNKNOWN must not be treated as a clean record, and that first scans can take 15-20 seconds. This is unusually rich behavioral context.
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 long but well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, layers are numbered by evidence strength, and each section adds non-obvious detail such as exclusion rules and output semantics. It is not minimal, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description must and does explain return values: risk, cabal_score, top_holder_pct, evidence_txs, deployer verdict, honeypot_risk, and degraded flags. It also covers pricing, authentication, timeout needs, and the distinction between cached and live traces, so an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both mintAddress and pairCreatedAt. The description does not materially add parameter-level semantics beyond calling the scan a token audit and noting that pairCreatedAt speeds analysis, which the schema already states. Baseline 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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint: is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity?' This clearly identifies the tool's operation and scope, and it is immediately distinguishable from the watch endpoint it mentions.
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?
The description explicitly contrasts the scan with the watch endpoint: 'This scan is a BUY check; a watch is a HOLD check, and a holder needs the second one continuously.' It also tells the agent to use the watch flow AFTER buying, giving clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_wallet_in_tokenAInspect
Is a SPECIFIC wallet involved in a SPECIFIC Solana token? Use this when a user names a wallet they are worried about, or when your agent keeps its own watchlist of addresses and wants to screen a token against one.
Answers from two sources at once:
the traced holders of that token — rank, % of supply, buy slot, whether it funded a coordinated cluster, whether it created the token, or whether it is the liquidity pool / a labelled exchange wallet
a LIVE on-chain holding lookup, so a wallet too small to appear in the trace is still resolved rather than dismissed
HOW TO READ THE RESULT — this matters more than the fields:
found_in_scan=false is NOT a clean bill of health. The trace covers the
largest holders, so a smaller position sits outside it, and a wallet that
sold out and closed its token account leaves nothing to observe. Never
tell a user a wallet is 'clean' or 'not involved' on this result. The
note field states the limit of what was actually checked; relay it.
holding.sold_out=true is the strong signal: a token account exists holding none of the token, i.e. this wallet HELD it and has since sold out.
track_record, when present, counts earlier tokens the wallet was early in and how many graduated. It is an association measured out-of-sample, NOT a profit signal and not a recommendation to copy or avoid anyone. Absence of a track record means we hold no record, not that the wallet has no history.
Free, no API key, rate limited per caller. For screening MANY wallets on every scan automatically, the Screen List add-on stores a private list per key: POST /api/screen-list/checkout.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | The wallet address to look for in that token (base58, 32–44 chars) | |
| mintAddress | Yes | The Solana mint address of the token (base58, 32–44 chars) |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the dual-source lookup, warns that found_in_scan=false is not a clean bill of health, interprets sold_out=true as the strong signal, and clarifies that track_record absence means no record rather than no history. This is unusually transparent.
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 long but every section earns its place: usage guidance, result caveats, signal interpretation, and access constraints are all critical because there is no output schema. It is front-loaded with the core question and uses structured bullets and bolded terms for readability.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the key result fields and their meanings: found_in_scan, note, holding.sold_out, and track_record. It also covers rate limits and the optional Screen List add-on, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret the response safely.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides for mintAddress and wallet. It does add context about what the wallet represents in the use case, but that is not necessary for parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description leads with a clear, specific question: 'Is a SPECIFIC wallet involved in a SPECIFIC Solana token?' This identifies the verb, resource, and scope well. However, it never mentions the sibling tool check_cabal_risk or explains how this check differs from a broader cabal-risk check, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 explicit usage scenarios: use it when a user names a worried wallet or when an agent wants to screen token addresses against a watchlist. There are no explicit exclusion criteria or direct comparison to check_cabal_risk, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.
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 Connectors
Solana token safety for AI agents — rug-pull, honeypot & Token-2022 trap detection before you buy.
Solana pre-trade safety for agents: rug check, honeypot sell-sim, drainer scan, tx preflight.
Solana onchain intelligence for AI agents: wallet risk, due-diligence, perps funding, smart money.
Solana memecoin rug check for trading agents: pump.fun launches, calibrated rug risk, wallets, KOL.
Related MCP Servers
SolSentry MCPofficial
AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceProvides post-deploy Solana threat intelligence, enabling AI agents to check operators, tokens, and network stats for detecting rug pulls and malicious activity.527MIT
Pique Signalofficial
AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceLive scored Solana memecoin signals with safety profiles, conviction scoring, and paper trading for AI agents.6MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceOn-chain Solana token safety MCP — screens SPL / Token-2022 tokens for rug-pull and honeypot patterns (mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holders, sellability), then executes MEV-protected swaps.1MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: check_cabal_risk evaluates token-level risk, while check_wallet_in_token determines whether a specific wallet is involved in a specific token. Even though both reference holder data, the inputs and intended use cases are unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both tools use a lower_snake 'check_' prefix and are readable, but the patterns diverge slightly: 'check_cabal_risk' is a simple noun-object construction while 'check_wallet_in_token' is prepositional. The naming is otherwise consistent and easy to predict.
Tool Count3/5
Two tools is on the borderline for a coherent tool surface. Each tool is substantial and earns its place, but the server would feel more complete with at least one or two additional helpers for watchlist or monitoring workflows.
Completeness3/5
The pair covers the core token-risk and wallet-involvement checks, but the descriptions repeatedly point to API endpoints for watch management and screen lists that are not exposed as MCP tools. This leaves a meaningful gap for post-buy monitoring and continuous alert workflows.