Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Lido - 6 tools for staking, delegation, and rewards data

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
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
junct-bot/lido-mcp
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
Lido MCP Server

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 6 tool updates
    • First observedappId
    • First observedimplementation
    • First observedisDepositable
    • First observedkernel
    • First observedProxyDeposit
    • First observedproxyType

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to interact with the Lido protocol for ETH staking, position management, and governance participation across Ethereum and L2 networks. It provides tools for querying balances, simulating transactions, and executing complex workflows like withdrawals and DAO voting through a safety-first interface.
    -
  • F
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server for querying Lido liquid staking protocol data via The Graph's decentralized network, providing tools for staking stats, APR, withdrawals, node operators, and governance.
    20
    -
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: appId, implementation, isDepositable, kernel, and proxyType are all separate read functions returning different data types, while ProxyDeposit is an event subscription tool. The descriptions make it impossible to confuse which tool to use for which specific contract query.

Naming Consistency4/5

Five tools follow a perfect camelCase pattern matching their contract function names (appId, implementation, isDepositable, kernel, proxyType), while ProxyDeposit uses PascalCase for an event. This minor deviation from the dominant pattern prevents a perfect score, but the naming remains highly readable and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

Six tools is reasonable for a smart contract interaction server, providing focused read access to key contract functions and one event subscription. While slightly minimal, each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat. A perfect score would require more comprehensive coverage of the contract's potential surface.

Completeness2/5

The toolset is severely incomplete for smart contract interaction. It only provides read functions and event subscription, completely missing write operations (no state modification tools), transaction sending, error handling, or broader contract interaction patterns. This creates significant gaps that will cause agent failures when trying to perform standard blockchain operations.