Этот проект реализует сервер Model Context Protocol (MCP) для взаимодействия с децентрализованными биржами (DEX). Он позволяет MCP-совместимым клиентам (таким как помощники AI, расширения IDE или пользовательские приложения) получать доступ к таким функциям, как получение котировок для свопов и выполнение свопов.
Этот сервер создан с использованием TypeScript и fastmcp .
Сервер предоставляет следующие инструменты, которые могут использовать клиенты MCP:
ODOS_GET_QUOTE : Получить котировку для обмена.
Параметры: chainId (число), sellToken (строка), buyToken (строка), sellAmount (строка)
ODOS_EXECUTE_SWAP : Выполнить замену.
Параметры: chainId (число), sellToken (строка), buyToken (строка), sellAmount (строка), quote (строка), walletProvider (строка)
chainId : идентификатор цепочки DEX.
sellToken : токен, который вы хотите продать.
buyToken : токен, который вы хотите купить.
sellAmount : Количество токенов, которое вы хотите продать.
quote : Цену, которую вы получили от сервиса get-quote .
walletProvider : Провайдер кошелька, которого вы хотите использовать.
Related MCP server: CCXT MCP Server
Node.js (рекомендуется v18 или новее)
pnpm (см. https://pnpm.io/installation )
Есть несколько способов использовать mcp-odos :
1. Использование pnpm dlx (рекомендуется для большинства настроек клиента MCP):
Вы можете запустить сервер напрямую с помощью pnpm dlx без необходимости глобальной установки. Это часто самый простой способ интеграции с клиентами MCP. Смотрите раздел «Запуск сервера с клиентом MCP» для примеров. ( pnpm dlx — это эквивалент npx в pnpm)
2. Глобальная установка из npm (через pnpm):
Установите пакет глобально, чтобы сделать команду mcp-odos доступной во всей системе:
pnpm add -g mcp-odos3. Сборка из исходного кода (для разработки или пользовательских модификаций):
Клонируйте репозиторий:
git clone https://github.com/IQAIcom/mcp-odos.git
cd mcp-odosУстановить зависимости:
pnpm installСборка сервера: это компилирует код TypeScript в JavaScript в каталоге dist .
pnpm run buildСкрипт prepare также запускает pnpm run build , поэтому зависимости создаются при установке, если вы клонируете и запускаете pnpm install .
Этот сервер MCP может потребовать установки определенных переменных среды клиентом MCP, который его запускает. Обычно они настраиваются в определении сервера MCP клиента (например, в файле mcp.json для Cursor или аналогичном для других клиентов).
Любые необходимые переменные среды для поставщиков кошельков или ключей API.
Клиенты MCP (например, помощники AI, расширения IDE и т. д.) будут запускать этот сервер как фоновый процесс. Вам нужно настроить клиент, чтобы сообщить ему, как запустить ваш сервер.
Ниже приведен пример фрагмента конфигурации, который может использовать клиент MCP (например, в mcp_servers.json или аналогичном файле конфигурации). В этом примере показано, как запустить сервер с использованием опубликованного пакета npm через pnpm dlx .
{
"mcpServers": {
"iq-odos-mcp-server": {
"command": "pnpm",
"args": ["dlx", "mcp-odos"],
"env": {
"WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY": "your_wallet_private_key_here"
}
}
}
}Альтернатива при глобальной установке:
Если вы установили mcp-odos глобально ( pnpm add -g mcp-odos ), вы можете упростить command и args :
{
"mcpServers": {
"iq-odos-mcp-server": {
"command": "mcp-odos",
"args": [],
"env": {
"WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY": "your_wallet_private_key_here"
}
}
}
}command : исполняемый файл для запуска.
Для pnpm dlx : "pnpm" (с "dlx" в качестве первого аргумента)
Для глобальной установки: "mcp-odos"
args : Массив аргументов для передачи команде.
Для pnpm dlx : ["dlx", "mcp-odos"]
Для глобальной установки: []
env : Объект, содержащий переменные среды, которые должны быть установлены при запуске процесса сервера. Здесь вы предоставляете любые необходимые переменные среды.
workingDirectory : Обычно не требуется при использовании опубликованного пакета через pnpm dlx или глобальную установку, так как пакет должен правильно обрабатывать свои собственные пути. Если вы запускали из источника ( node dist/index.js ), то установка workingDirectory в корень проекта будет важна.
Get the chain ID for a given chain name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | The chain name to get the ID for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. While the tool name suggests a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm safety or other behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly states the purpose, earning full marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be improved by explaining what the chain ID is or the format of the return value. It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'chain' already described. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'chain ID', and the condition 'for a given chain name'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ODOS_GET_QUOTE and ODOS_SWAP, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. It is straightforward but lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a quote for a swap or exchange operation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | The blockchain network to execute the transaction on. uses fraxtal as default | fraxtal |
| fromToken | Yes | The token to swap from (address). | |
| toToken | Yes | The token to swap to (address). | |
| amount | Yes | The amount of tokens to swap, in wei. | |
| prettyFormat | No | Whether to pretty format the quote. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond stating it gets a quote. There is no mention of side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could still include more useful information without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a quote object). It does not mention the return format, pagination, or error cases, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, such as token address format or amount precision.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a quote for a swap or exchange operation' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (quote), and context (swap/exchange). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ODOS_SWAP (which performs the swap) and ODOS_GET_CHAIN_ID (which retrieves chain ID).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 siblings or alternatives. It does not mention that getting a quote is a prerequisite for swapping, nor does it advise against using it in certain contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a swap transaction
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | The blockchain network to execute the transaction on. uses fraxtal as default | fraxtal |
| fromToken | Yes | The token to swap from (address). | |
| toToken | Yes | The token to swap to (address). | |
| amount | Yes | The amount of tokens to swap, in wei. | |
| prettyFormat | No | Whether to pretty format the quote. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Execute a swap transaction' implies a write operation but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs (e.g., token approval), or error conditions, making it insufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It earns its place but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (swap transaction with 5 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits critical details like expected output (transaction hash?), slippage parameters, or prerequisite approvals, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., each token address, amount in wei). The description adds no new meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute a swap transaction' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ODOS_GET_QUOTE which provides quotes. However, it lacks additional context about what a swap entails, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool (e.g., after obtaining a quote) or when not to use it, leaving the agent without important context for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0ODOS_GET_CHAIN_IDODOS_GET_QUOTEODOS_SWAPScored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct step in the swap process: chain ID lookup, quote retrieval, and execution. No ambiguity or overlap exists.
All tools use a consistent ODOS_ prefix followed by clear verb_noun patterns (GET_CHAIN_ID, GET_QUOTE, SWAP), making them predictable.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for the core swap workflow without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tools cover the essential swap steps but lack a token approval tool, which is commonly required for many swaps, creating a potential gap.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Multi-aggregator swap router for AI agents on Base. 10 bps fee. MCP-native, non-custodial.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
MCP server giving AI agents one-connection access to crypto & DeFi data: DeFi protocol TVL, stableco