A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceDecodes Ethereum calldata and returns a safety verdict with plain-English explanations of what the transaction does, flagging dangerous actions like unlimited approvals or gasless permits.
2
MIT
dappgrade — onchain app health index
Server Details
Pre-transaction health and safety verdicts for onchain apps, by contract address.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: methodology explains scoring, get_score retrieves a verdict for a specific address, and get_universe lists covered dApps. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the `get_<noun>` pattern consistently, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is appropriately scoped for the server's purpose: one for explanation, one for querying, one for discovery. No redundancy or missing essentials.
Completeness4/5
Core operations are covered: methodology, scoring, and universe listing. Minor gaps like batch scoring or historical data are absent but not critical for the intended use case.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_methodologyAInspect
How dappgrade scores dApps: tiers 0/1/2, three-state checks (pass/fail/not_reached), coverage, and the verdict model. Free.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only adds 'Free,' which is ambiguous and does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, rate limits, output format). The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.
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?
16 words, highly concise, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted elements.
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?
Given no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key aspects. It could mention output format but is sufficient for a simple informational tool.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds no param info but is not required to. Baseline for 0 parameters 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?
The description clearly states the tool explains the scoring methodology, specifying tiers, checks, coverage, and verdict model. It distinguishes from siblings like get_score (which likely returns scores) and get_universe.
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 implies this tool is for understanding the methodology, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_score or get_universe, nor provides exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_scoreAInspect
Pre-transaction health/safety verdict for an onchain app, by contract address. Returns a decision-shaped verdict — ok / caution / avoid / unknown — with score, coverage, tier, flags and per-dimension sub-scores. unknown is a real, free answer: never infer safety from its absence. Indexed addresses are a paid lookup (0.01 USDC via x402 on Base).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | EVM chain — id (8453), CAIP-2 (eip155:8453), or name (base, mainnet, arbitrum, optimism) | |
| address | Yes | 0x contract address (40 hex chars) |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses payment requirement for indexed addresses (0.01 USDC via x402 on Base) and warns that `unknown` is not to be inferred as safe. Does not explicitly state read-only nature, but sufficiently covers key behavioral traits.
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, front-loaded with purpose and output description. Second sentence adds crucial clarification and payment note. No wasted words.
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?
Without output schema, description adequately explains return format (verdict with sub-scores) and payment condition. Could mention that both parameters are required, but implied. Good overall.
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% (both parameters described). Description mentions payment for 'indexed addresses' but doesn't add significant meaning beyond schema for the two parameters. 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?
Describes a specific verb+resource: 'Pre-transaction health/safety verdict for an onchain app, by contract address.' Clearly differentiates from siblings (get_methodology, get_universe) which are about methodology info and universe listing.
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?
Implied usage as pre-transaction safety check, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Clarifies that `unknown` is a real answer, but lacks comparison to siblings or conditions for using other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_universeBInspect
List the dApps dappgrade covers, with current scores and coverage (free discovery manifest).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | filter by tier 0/1/2 | |
| chain | No | filter by chain, e.g. base, mainnet | |
| limit | No | max rows (default 100) |
Tool Definition Quality
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a 'free discovery manifest' suggesting read-only, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. However, jargon like 'dappgrade' and 'free discovery manifest' may reduce clarity for some agents.
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?
No output schema, so description should provide more on return format or use cases. Only lists what it shows but not how results are structured or what to expect.
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 basic descriptions, but the tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and identifies resource 'dApps dappgrade covers', clearly differentiating from siblings like get_methodology and get_score.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for discovery, but fails to differentiate from siblings or provide context on when to use this tool over others.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceProvides counterparty risk checks for any EVM address, returning malicious-history flags, tiered risk scoring, and plain-language summaries via x402 payment.
- 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
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAgent-Level Transaction Safety Oracle. Before an AI agent signs a blockchain transaction, it returns a SAFE/UNSAFE verdict with a SENTINEL Score (AAA-D) and risk flags. Pay-per-call $0.005 USDC via x402 on Base.1