AmikoNet Signer MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to AmikoNet Signer MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseCqualityCmaintenanceEnables personal agents to access Solana market data and execute token swaps via the Dritan SDK while maintaining local wallet security. It provides tools for wallet management, real-time token price tracking, and secure transaction signing and broadcasting.4221 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides cryptographic identity and signing capabilities for AI agents, enabling them to create persistent identities, sign actions with private keys, and allow external systems to verify the authenticity and provenance of agent-initiated operations.4MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceManages Algorand signer records, enforces local signing policy, and signs payloads without network access.MIT

IronWallet MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to securely manage a non-custodial wallet with locally encrypted seed phrases, supporting balance checks, local signing, token transfers, swaps, and interactions across 10+ blockchain networks.MIT- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceNon-custodial TEE key management and signing for AI agents, supporting multiple blockchains.12MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for local transaction signing across EVM, UTXO, Tron, and XRP blockchains, with no network calls or API keys required.686 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: create_did_signature focuses solely on signing a message, while generate_auth_payload creates a complete authentication payload including the signature and other fields. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_did_signature and generate_auth_payload), using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its apparent authentication/identity domain. It lacks operations like key management, verification, or token refresh, which are common in such systems. The count is too low for comprehensive coverage.
The tool set is severely incomplete for an authentication server. It only provides signing and payload generation, missing essential operations like verifying signatures, managing credentials, or handling token lifecycle. This will likely cause agent failures in broader authentication workflows.