solguard
Server Details
On-chain Solana token safety — screen for rugs/honeypots and execute MEV-protected swaps.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: checking authorities, executing safe swaps, simulating sells for honeypot detection, and running a safety audit. However, check_authorities and verify_token_safety overlap slightly, as both examine mint authorities and extensions, but descriptions clarify their scope.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (check_authorities, execute_safe_swap, simulate_sell, verify_token_safety). No mixing of styles or irregular patterns.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—providing safety checks and safe swapping on Solana. Each tool serves a necessary function without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the core workflow: safety audit, authority checks, swap execution, and honeypot simulation. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for general token info or price data, but the set is sufficient for safe trading.
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_authoritiesCheck Token AuthoritiesARead-onlyInspect
Check mint/freeze authority and Token-2022 traps, read directly from the chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | The Solana token mint address (base58) to inspect. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| verdict | No | |
| mint_authority | No | |
| freeze_authority | No | |
| dangerous_extensions | No | |
| token2022_extensions | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond annotations by specifying what is checked (mint/freeze authority and traps) and that it reads directly from chain. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description complements them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No redundancy or waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with one parameter and read-only operation. Description covers purpose and key targets. Output schema exists, so no need for return value explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter mint with schema description covering 100%. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Check', resource 'mint/freeze authority and Token-2022 traps', and emphasizes it's a read operation. Differentiates from sibling tools like verify_token_safety.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like verify_token_safety. Implies usage for checking authorities, but no when-not-to or alternative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
execute_safe_swapExecute Safe SwapAInspect
Execute a buy of the token through RugCheck AI's safety-verified route.
Builds the swap transaction and returns it for the agent to sign. The route is pre-screened and MEV-protected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | The Solana token mint address (base58) to inspect. | |
| wallet | Yes | The agent's wallet address (base58) — signer and funder. | |
| amount_usd | Yes | Amount to spend on the buy, in US dollars. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | |
| route | Yes | |
| token | Yes | |
| action | Yes | |
| amount_usd | Yes | |
| transaction | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds key behavioral context: it 'returns it for the agent to sign', indicating the agent must sign separately. It also notes MEV protection, which annotations do not cover. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but context indicates), the description adequately covers purpose, behavior (returns transaction to sign), and safety context. Could optionally mention output format but is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters (mint, wallet, amount_usd). The mention of 'pre-screened route' relates to the tool, not parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Execute a buy of the token through RugCheck AI's safety-verified route' and 'Builds the swap transaction and returns it for the agent to sign.' This provides a specific verb ('execute', 'buy', 'build') and resource ('swap transaction'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'simulate_sell' and 'verify_token_safety'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for safe swaps with 'The route is pre-screened and MEV-protected.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to sibling tools like 'simulate_sell' or 'check_authorities'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
simulate_sellSimulate Token SellARead-onlyInspect
Check whether the token can actually be sold (honeypot check) from on-chain constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | The Solana token mint address (base58) to inspect. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| verdict | No | |
| sellable | No | |
| freeze_authority | No | |
| blocking_extensions | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses honeypot check and on-chain constraints, consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations; no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key purpose, no superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter simulation tool with output schema, description fully covers essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear mint address description; tool description adds no extra meaning beyond stating the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states tool checks sellability (honeypot) on-chain, distinguishing it from siblings like check_authorities or execute_safe_swap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage before selling a token, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_token_safetyVerify Token SafetyARead-onlyInspect
Run an on-chain safety audit on a Solana token before trading.
Reads the mint directly and flags an active mint authority (supply can be inflated), an active freeze authority (your tokens can be frozen), and dangerous Token-2022 extensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | The Solana token mint address (base58) to inspect. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | |
| risks | No | |
| token | Yes | |
| supply | No | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| decimals | No | |
| extensions | No | |
| mint_authority | No | |
| freeze_authority | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing what the audit checks (active mint authority, freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions). This gives the agent specific behavioral insight beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, an available output schema, and the description covering the core behavior (checking authorities and extensions), the tool is fully specified for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter (mint) with a clear description in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating that it inspects the mint address. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs an on-chain safety audit on a Solana token before trading, specifying it reads the mint and flags specific risks (mint authority, freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_authorities (likely narrower) and execute_safe_swap/simulate_sell (different actions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'before trading,' indicating when to use. While it doesn't mention when not to use or directly compare to siblings, the sibling names are provided in context, and the usage context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!