bonk-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.10
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools are distinct, but buy-token and jupiter-swap both enable acquiring tokens, differing only by DEX protocol. Launch-token's optional initial buy also overlaps somewhat with buying, though its primary purpose is creation. Descriptions mention protocols, but an agent could still select the wrong tool for a simple token purchase.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix conventions: launch-token and buy-token use verb-noun, while token-lookup and jupiter-swap use noun-verb, and birdeye-trending-tokens/birdeye-top-traders follow a brand-noun pattern. This inconsistent naming makes it harder to predict tool names.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a meme token server, covering token creation, purchasing, swapping, lookup, and market data. Each tool serves a distinct function with no redundancy in count.
Completeness4/5
Core trading workflows are covered: launch, buy, swap, lookup, and market insights. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit price feed or wallet balance tool, but these can be worked around via existing swap/lookup tools. The surface is fairly complete for the stated purpose.
Average 3.4/5 across 6 of 6 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the high-level action. It does not mention transaction signing, execution mechanics, fees, or slippage implications beyond what the schema already shows. This leaves the agent without important context for a state-changing swap operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
This is a 4-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic action. It omits crucial context such as what the tool returns, whether the swap is simulated or executed, and how slippage or amount units are handled, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
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 fully documents amount, input_mint, output_mint, and slippage_bps. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Swap') and clearly identifies the resource and scope ('tokens on Solana using Jupiter'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like buy-token and launch-token by indicating a generic exchange operation rather than token creation or purchase.
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 such as buy-token or token-lookup. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues to help the agent choose correctly.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It states only the action 'lookup', which implies read-only, but does not confirm safety, mention edge cases, or describe what happens if the ticker is unknown.
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 a single concise sentence and front-loads the action, with no redundant words. However, its brevity leaves out useful context, making it efficient but perhaps too sparse.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential function but omits details about the return format, potential errors, and whether the operation is safe, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.
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 already fully documents the 'ticker' parameter with examples; the description's 'by ticker symbol' adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb 'Lookup' and identifies the resource as 'token mint addresses', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like buy-token or launch-token.
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 implies a use case (converting ticker to mint address) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Buy tokens' implies a state-changing transaction, but it does not disclose potential side effects like network fees, slippage risks, wallet requirements, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and platform. There is no wasted verbiage; every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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's complexity (an on-chain buy operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, prerequisites, or edge cases, leaving the agent without essential context for successful invocation. The tool description is bare-bones and incomplete for a transaction-executing 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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (token_address, amount_sol, slippage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.
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 'Buy tokens on Solana using the Raydium launchpad' clearly states the action (buy), resource (tokens on Solana), and platform (Raydium launchpad). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jupiter-swap by specifying the launchpad, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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 guidance is provided. The mention of 'using the Raydium launchpad' implies this is for launchpad purchases, but the description does not state when to prefer it over alternatives like jupiter-swap, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied, not clearly defined.
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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states a read operation ('Get') but provides no details on response format, data limits, or safety nuances. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, accurately and concisely conveying the tool's 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose but omits any indication of what the response contains (e.g., token names, metrics, ranking). Without an output schema, this lack of return-value context makes the description minimally viable but incomplete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trending tokens on Solana from BirdEye'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'birdeye-top-traders' (top traders) and 'token-lookup' (specific token lookup).
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. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'birdeye-top-traders' or 'token-lookup'.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Raydium launchpad and the optional initial buy, but does not disclose potential consequences such as transaction costs, irreversibility, or the need for a wallet with SOL. For a financial action, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the optional secondary action without wasting tokens.
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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the high-stakes nature of launching a token (involving financial transactions), this sparse description is insufficient. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash, token address), prerequisites (e.g., connected wallet, SOL balance), or potential risks. A more complete description would be necessary for an agent to use this safely and effectively.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema; the mention of 'initial buy' loosely connects to initial_buy_amount and minimum_token_out, but the schema already explains those parameters clearly. No additional semantics are provided for fields like name, symbol, or image_url.
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's purpose: launching a new meme token on Solana via the Raydium launchpad. It uses a specific verb ('launch') and resource ('meme token on Solana'), and the optional initial buy is also mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy-token and jupiter-swap, which handle buying/swapping existing tokens.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: when the user wants to create/launch a new meme token. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on, for example, using buy-token for purchasing existing tokens.
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 only mentions the source (BirdEye) and the time frame (today's data), but does not describe return format, ranking criteria, limits, or any side effects. For a read operation, it lacks context about what the response will look like.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. No superfluous wording.
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?
The description is adequate for a zero-parameter tool, but it does not specify what constitutes 'top traders' (e.g., by volume, profit) or the return structure. Since there is no output schema, the description could provide more detail about the expected 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden. The baseline of 4 applies as the description appropriately requires no parameter explanations.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'top traders on Solana from BirdEye', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'birdeye-trending-tokens'. The parenthetical 'showing today's data' adds temporal specificity.
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 for retrieving top trader data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'birdeye-trending-tokens' or 'token-lookup'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the basic function.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![bonk-mcp-e MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Akhil0g/bonk-mcp-e/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Akhil0g/bonk-mcp-e)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bonk-mcp-e MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Akhil0g/bonk-mcp-e/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Akhil0g/bonk-mcp-e)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Akhil0g/bonk-mcp-e'

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