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.
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
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 | |||
TDQS
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) |
TDQS
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) |
TDQS
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
- First observed
get_methodology - First observed
get_score - First observed
get_universe
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
Deterministic on-chain token safety verdicts for Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Solana. No LLM — pure on-chain data including Clanker CREATE2 resolution, Pump.fun bonding curve detection, Raydium LP checks, and a pro tier with Farcaster social signals and holder growth velocity. Also includes /verdict/pump — a fast Pump.fun specific verdict optimised for HFT at 474ms p50, covering bonding curve SOL reserve, graduation status, and deployer age. Solana only, $0.02 USDC."
Read-only crypto safety: token honeypot checks, EIP-712 signature decode, approval scans.
Pre-transaction risk screening for Ethereum addresses: signed score, sanctions, audit trail.
Check a Base contract, transaction or web page before you act. Free pricing, paid per call in USDC.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides 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-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
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.