Skip to main content
Glama
0xddneto

AI Proof of Us MCP Server

by 0xddneto
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

AI Proof of Us

npm version AIPOU MCP server quality

AI Proof of Us is an MCP-first receipt protocol for humans working with AI.

It starts from a simple belief: when people spend real hours building, debugging, researching, writing, and coordinating through AI agents, that work should be able to leave a private, portable receipt.

AIPOU gives Codex, Claude, Cursor, OpenClaw, local models, and other MCP-compatible clients a shared way to create signed, privacy-preserving receipts for AI-assisted tasks.

The human reward loop is the point: people can keep receipts for the work they do with AI all day, and validator-approved receipts can claim AIPOU on Base. The protocol exists to make that claimable work more honest, portable, and useful across agents.

The developer surface is intentionally small: receipts, hashes, lifecycle hooks, and workReceiptId interoperability. Agents, marketplaces, and services can also reference AIPOU receipts or voluntarily accept AIPOU as settlement when both sides agree to use it.

The first version ships as:

  • an MCP server that records privacy-preserving AI task receipts

  • an installable OpenClaw skill for agent workflows

  • docs for MCP clients, agent builders, lifecycle adapters, anti-abuse, and future attestation design

  • a reward model that converts valid receipts into claimable emissions

  • an ERC-20 reward token on Base: AI Proof of Use (AIPOU)

The core idea is simple:

agent starts task -> MCP creates nonce -> AI work happens -> signed receipt -> validator checks -> optional AIPOU claim

Start here if you are building or testing an agent integration:

Read From AI Work to Onchain Rewards for the complete journey, global farming workflow, reward calculation, and one-command claim experience. Read Human Rewards and Agent Payments for the human reward loop and experimental agent-payment framing. Read AIPOU Tokenomics and Launch Transparency for supply, pool, reward, and experimental launch details. Read AIPOU Funding and Partnership Brief for the public Base grant, protocol partnership, and responsible-liquidity proposal. Read AIPOU Creative Service Bounties to quote or accept a concrete image, video, pixel-art, or 3D commission settled in AIPOU after accepted delivery. Read Evidence Boundaries and Claim Validation Policy before proposing integrations with receipt, provenance, security, or payment projects.

Official website: https://0xddneto.github.io/AI-Proof-of-Us/ Public explainer: https://huggingface.co/spaces/0xddneto/AI-Proof-of-Us

Official project contact: aipou001@gmail.com

Project identity and authorship:

AIPOU and AI Proof of Us are currently unregistered project identifiers. The MIT license covers the software, not permission to present another token, service, or package as the official AIPOU project.

This is not "AI usage mining" and it is not meant to reward raw prompt spam or attract passive token speculation. AIPOU is for humans doing real work with AI and for developers who want to test whether that work can produce portable receipts across agent clients.

In plain language:

Humans work with AI -> agents create receipts -> approved receipts claim AIPOU -> agents and marketplaces may accept AIPOU as settlement.

Base mainnet deployment

Contract: 0x55f0Cc5e51A1284D20337d6cbb18938C8A1ABCbB
Chain:    Base Mainnet (8453)
Token:    AI Proof of Use (AIPOU)
Supply:   100,000,000 AIPOU
Cap:      1,000,000,000 AIPOU
Logo:     assets/token/aipou.png
Claims:   0x4ca4C98fB784D20EdC8E2A7F531dAab4c6e53058
Proof:    EIP-712 + Ed25519 + Merkle
Replay:   blocked by nonce and receiptId

Related MCP server: AgentLens

Aerodrome liquidity pool

Pool:       0x3bEA7b68Af54Da779454f82148Ef848c76F78D02
Pair:       AIPOU/WETH
Type:       Volatile
Initial LP: 100,000,000 AIPOU + 0.000632035343416403 ETH
LP lock:    0xc11197E32dFb2352f262D874acFc54467aee6B52
Unlock:     2027-07-08 20:16:49 UTC

The pool was initialized with minimal ETH liquidity and later deepened to approximately 99.23M AIPOU + 0.02957 WETH. A total of 1,712.89145801936861611 LP tokens, representing 99.9999% of the LP supply, are held by an immutable lock until July 8, 2027. The lock has no owner, admin, or early-withdrawal path; after expiry, anyone may trigger release, but the LP tokens can only return to the fixed beneficiary.

Liquidity is still small and its price remains volatile. The lock prevents the protocol wallet from removing the locked position during the published period; it does not guarantee token value, trading volume, or future liquidity.

The initial experimental pool buy was later returned through Aerodrome so the large early purchase would not remain as a misleading concentrated holder balance. See AIPOU Tokenomics and Launch Transparency.

Repository layout

contracts/     ERC-20 token, deploy scripts, Hardhat tests
mcp-server/    MCP server that records AI task receipts
docs/          architecture, anti-abuse model, Base launch notes
skills/        installable agent skills, including OpenClaw
huggingface-space/  static public protocol explainer

Token

Name:   AI Proof of Use
Symbol: AIPOU
Chain:  Base
Cap:    1,000,000,000 AIPOU

The token emission controller is AIPOUClaims. It mints only receipts included in a validator-published Merkle root and rejects a receiptId after its first claim.

AIPOU claims are optional settlement for approved receipts. They do not prove hidden AI use, objective task value, provider endorsement, provider inference without cryptographic provider evidence, or security-policy compliance.

MCP server

The MCP server exposes tools for creating task receipts:

  • get_aipou_contract

  • get_aipou_identity

  • estimate_ai_reward

  • begin_ai_task

  • complete_ai_task

  • export_ai_receipts

  • get_aipou_status (recorded, pending, claimed, and onchain balance summary)

  • settle_ai_rewards (one limited validator batch)

  • settle_all_ai_rewards (one-command claim path for all pending eligible receipts)

Receipts store hashes and metadata, not raw prompts or model outputs.

The dedicated farming key signs EIP-712 authorizations locally. Never paste it into a chat or use a primary wallet. The collector has a separate Ed25519 key that cannot move funds.

Frameworks do not need to understand Merkle trees, Base, or token claims to integrate the receipt layer. The minimal adapter watches task start and task end, records provider/model metadata and hashes, and exposes the AIPOU receiptId as workReceiptId for workflow metadata, traces, UI, audit exports, payment/session records, or later optional settlement.

Quick start

Create A Verified Local Receipt

This is the lowest-friction adoption test — one command, no checkout, no setup:

npx -y aipou-mcp-server --demo

It creates an ephemeral wallet, records and cryptographically verifies one local receipt, prints the workReceiptId integration object, and removes all temporary state. It requires no wallet setup, funds, network access, claim, or raw prompt and output storage.

Create A Persistent Dedicated Identity

After evaluating the disposable demo, initialize a dedicated farming wallet without printing its private key:

npx -y aipou-mcp-server --init

The command creates ~/.aipou/agent-wallet.key with restricted file access and prints a ready-to-copy MCP configuration that references the key by path. Re-running it reports the existing identity instead of overwriting the key.

Verify the persistent setup without writing files, contacting an RPC, moving funds, or submitting a claim:

npx -y aipou-mcp-server --doctor

The diagnostic returns structured checks for Node.js, storage, identity, contract addresses, and chain. It prints only the public wallet address, never the private key.

From a source checkout, the same check runs with:

npm install
npm run demo -w mcp-server

Test The Receipt Adapter

This is the fastest path for maintainers and agent-framework builders. It creates a local receipt with an ephemeral wallet and prints the workReceiptId object that a framework can attach to run metadata, traces, audit exports, or payment/session metadata.

npm install
npm run build -w mcp-server
cd examples/lifecycle-adapter
npm install
npm run demo

No claim is made. No funds move. No raw prompt or output is uploaded.

Run The MCP Server

Install dependencies:

npm install

Build all packages:

npm run build

Run contract tests:

npm run test -w contracts

Run the MCP server locally:

npm run dev -w mcp-server

MCP clients can launch the published server with:

npx -y aipou-mcp-server

Release aipou-mcp-server@0.5.0 is live on npm and marked latest in the official MCP Registry. It was published from GitHub Actions through npm Trusted Publishing with SLSA provenance. See docs/npm-publication.md.

Local MCP config example

Keep the farming private key in a .env file next to the repo and point the server at it with DOTENV_CONFIG_PATH. Never paste the private key into the MCP client config itself: client configs are often synced, logged, or read by other tools.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "aipou": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/AI-Proof-of-Us/mcp-server/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "DOTENV_CONFIG_PATH": "/path/to/AI-Proof-of-Us/.env",
        "AIPOU_DATA_DIR": "/path/to/AI-Proof-of-Us/.aipou"
      }
    }
  }
}

Prefer AIPOU_AGENT_KEY_FILE, generated by --init, over embedding AIPOU_AGENT_PRIVATE_KEY in a client configuration. The .env file can still hold the private key for backward compatibility, plus AIPOU_CLAIMS_ADDRESS. On the validator machine, keep the validator key out of that shared .env: store it in a separate file and reference it with AIPOU_VALIDATOR_KEY_FILE so farming-only processes never load it.

Reward flow

  1. The agent calls begin_ai_task and signs a unique nonce with its farming wallet.

  2. The client collects usage and calls complete_ai_task with the output hash.

  3. The MCP derives the trust tier and signs the receipt with Ed25519.

  4. The validator rejects repeated nonces and repeated task/output evidence.

  5. get_aipou_status lets the user see how much has already been recorded, claimed, and left pending.

  6. After an explicit settlement request, settle_all_ai_rewards processes all currently eligible pending receipts from the shared AIPOU_DATA_DIR in bounded batches.

  7. AIPOUClaims rejects claimed receipt IDs and mints AIPOU to each farming wallet.

Users should normally ask for status first, for example show my AIPOU status, to see already claimed rewards, pending receipts, and the farming wallet's onchain balance. An explicit request such as claim my AIPOU is the trigger for settlement only when pending eligible receipts exist. Broad claim requests use settle_all_ai_rewards; settle_ai_rewards remains available for a single limited batch. The MCP client and its user keep the final say on how on-chain transactions are confirmed; the server never asks a client to skip its own confirmation policy. The validator can optionally enforce a settlement policy (minimum work floor per receipt via AIPOU_MIN_RECEIPT_TOKENS, per-wallet daily receipt limit via AIPOU_MAX_DAILY_RECEIPTS_PER_WALLET); both checks are disabled by default.

The trust tier is derived by the MCP and recomputed by the validator. Users cannot self-report provider_signed; a provider tier requires a valid provider signature from a configured public key.

See docs/base-launch.md for the deployment checklist.

Public launch

Security and abuse warning

AI work is easy to fake if the protocol only counts tokens or session time. AIPOU should evolve toward stronger signals:

  • provider-signed usage assertions

  • MCP client signatures

  • task hashes linked to real work

  • staking or slashing for reward operators

  • human or community validation for high-value claims

The token can launch early, but emissions should start conservative.

Clear limits:

  • AIPOU is not an AI-use detector.

  • AIPOU is not a scanner or policy gate.

  • AIPOU does not trustlessly prove "useful work" today.

  • The current validator is a protocol authority for client_signed receipts.

  • AIPOU work receipts do not replace narrower tool-call, boundary-event, payment, or policy receipts; they can reference each other.

  • AIPOU does not replace SLSA-style provenance, agent-security scanners, or observability traces.

  • AIPOU does not replace x402, AP2, stablecoins, or wallet automation.

  • AIPOU can be used as payment only where participants voluntarily accept it.

  • client_signed receipts currently rely on validator policy and trusted collector fingerprints.

  • Serious adoption should move owner and validator authority to multisig and publish explicit validator rules.

Available Tools

5 tools
complete_ai_taskC

Complete a unique task, derive its trust tier, reject duplicate evidence, and create an Ed25519-signed receipt.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceYes
outputHashYes
inputTokensYes
outputTokensYes
durationSecondsYes
providerEvidenceNo

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions trust derivation, duplicate rejection (idempotency), and signing, which are useful but insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, state changes, or what constitutes a valid input.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details. It is front-loaded with the main action but is not comprehensive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain input/output contracts, parameter validation, or return format, making it difficult 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.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain nonce, inputTokens, outputTokens, durationSeconds, outputHash, or providerEvidence, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 clearly states the tool completes a task and produces a signed receipt, distinguishing it from sibling tools that get or estimate. However, 'unique task' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what constitutes a task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings are get/estimate, suggesting this is the completion step, but no explicit context like 'use after estimate_ai_reward' is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

estimate_ai_rewardB

Estimate the client-signed AIPOU reward before a task is completed. The final tier is derived by the validator.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputTokensYes
outputTokensYes
durationSecondsYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description reveals that the reward is client-signed and the final tier is determined by the validator, indicating that the estimate may differ from the final reward. This provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple read operation.

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 concise at two sentences, but the lack of parameter details means it is not as helpful as it could be. It is well-structured and front-loaded but sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits explanations of parameter semantics, return value format, and potential side effects, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no information about the three required parameters (inputTokens, outputTokens, durationSeconds). With 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to explain their meaning or expected values.

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 that the tool estimates the client-signed AIPOU reward before task completion, using a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('AIPOU reward'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_aipou_contract' and 'complete_ai_task' by focusing on pre-completion estimation.

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 usage before a task is completed but does not specify when not to use it or explicitly mention alternatives. It provides basic temporal context but lacks clear guidance on alternative tools for related purposes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_aipou_contractA

Return the configured AIPOU token contract address, Base network details, explorer URL, and minimal ABI.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It indicates a read operation returning static configuration data, with no mention of side effects, authentication, or rate limits. For a simple info tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loads the key return values. Every element is necessary and no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lists four concrete items: contract address, Base network details, explorer URL, and minimal ABI. This is sufficiently complete for understanding the tool's return value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters. The input schema has 100% coverage (vacuously). The description adds all meaning about what the tool returns, compensating fully for the lack of parameters.

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 returns the configured AIPOU token contract address, Base network details, explorer URL, and minimal ABI. The verb 'Return' and specific resources distinguish it from siblings like get_aipou_identity or get_aipou_status.

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 gives clear context for what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling names imply different functionality, but no direct guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_aipou_identityA

Return the dedicated farming wallet address and public Ed25519 collector key. Private keys are never returned.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the key behavioral trait: private keys are never returned, which is important for security. It is transparent about what the tool does and does not provide.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the returned data and adds a critical exclusion (private keys). Every word is informative and earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, including both elements and a security note. It is complete given the tool's simplicity.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters.

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 specifies that the tool returns a farming wallet address and a public Ed25519 collector key, with a note that private keys are never returned. The name and description align and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_aipou_contract or get_aipou_status.

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 usage when identity information is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_aipou_statusB

Show recorded, pending, and already claimed AIPOU receipts plus the farming wallet's on-chain AIPOU balance. Does not reveal private keys or full receipt payloads.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Does not reveal private keys or full receipt payloads', adding security context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication requirements or other behavioral aspects.

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 concise sentences. The first describes the outputs, the second adds a safety note. No waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs and a caveat. However, it lacks details about the output format, possible error states (e.g., wallet not found), and edge cases, which would help an agent fully understand the response.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by listing the types of data returned (receipts, balance), which is useful beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

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 uses specific verbs ('Show') and resources ('recorded, pending, and already claimed AIPOU receipts', 'farming wallet's on-chain AIPOU balance'). It clearly states what the tool outputs, but does not differentiate from sibling tools such as get_aipou_contract or get_aipou_identity, which could be ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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.

  1. 5 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedcomplete_ai_task
    • First observedestimate_ai_reward
    • First observedget_aipou_contract
    • First observedget_aipou_identity
    • First observedget_aipou_status
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the AIPOU system: contract info, wallet identity, status, reward estimation, and task completion. No functional overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_aipou_*, estimate_ai_reward, complete_ai_task). No mixing of styles.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools are well-scoped for a focused server managing AIPOU token interactions and AI task rewards. Neither too sparse nor excessive.

Completeness4/5

Covers the core workflow: get identity, estimate reward, complete task, check status. Missing an explicit claim tool, but the status tool shows balance, implying claims may be off-chain.

Maintenance

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessWithin a week

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • AgentLens

    agentkitai
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    AI-agent observability server whose distinguishing feature is a SHA-256 hash-chained, tamper-evident audit log with chain verification and signed export. Works with Claude Desktop, Cursor, and any MCP client.
    22
    2
    23
    MIT

  • @humanaccepted/mcp

    Ola-Turmo
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server that auto-emits tamper-evident receipts for every tool call, enabling EU AI Act Article 12 compliance with signed, chain-linked receipts.
    1
    -

  • @sequesign/mcp

    Sequesign
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to create cryptographically verifiable receipts of their delegated work, with capabilities for multi-party approval and offline verification.
    11
    162
    Apache 2.0

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0xddneto/AI-Proof-of-Us'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server