Skip to main content
Glama
5ajaki

Safe MCP Server

by 5ajaki
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: decodeTransactionData handles data decoding, getMultisigTransaction retrieves a specific transaction, and getSafeTransactions lists all transactions for a Safe. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with camelCase (e.g., decodeTransactionData, getMultisigTransaction). However, the verb 'get' is used for two tools while 'decode' is used for one, which is a minor deviation from perfect uniformity.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a Safe MCP server, as it lacks operations like creating or executing transactions, which are core to multisig workflows. The count is borderline for the apparent scope of Safe management.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is significantly incomplete for Safe management, missing essential CRUD operations such as creating, proposing, or executing transactions. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform full lifecycle actions on Safes.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('decode') but doesn't describe what the tool returns, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely processes sensitive transaction data.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

    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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the decoded output looks like, potential errors, or how it integrates with the Safe API context. For a data processing tool, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('data' as hex format, 'to' as optional contract address). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

    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 verb ('decode') and resource ('transaction data'), and specifies the method ('using Safe API'), which provides a specific technical context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMultisigTransaction' or 'getSafeTransactions', which appear to retrieve rather than decode data.

    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 doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'getMultisigTransaction' or 'getSafeTransactions', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe what details are returned, error conditions, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves transaction details. It doesn't explain what details are returned, potential error cases, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, the description should provide more context.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'safeTxHash' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain hash format or where to obtain it). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 action ('Get details') and target resource ('specific multisig transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'getSafeTransactions' (which likely retrieves multiple transactions), missing the opportunity to clarify this is for retrieving a single transaction by hash.

    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 doesn't mention the sibling tools 'decodeTransactionData' or 'getSafeTransactions', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a transaction hash. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and parameter alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get all transactions' but doesn't clarify aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., historical vs. recent). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

    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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

    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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents parameters like 'address', 'limit', and 'offset' with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval for a Safe address, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context such as format examples or constraints.

    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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all transactions for a Safe address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMultisigTransaction' which might also retrieve transactions, leaving room for confusion about scope or type differences.

    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 such as 'getMultisigTransaction' or 'decodeTransactionData'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

safe-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

safe-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/5ajaki/safe-mcp-server'

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