Skip to main content
Glama
Kaskad-Lending

Kaskad Protocol MCP Server

Related Servers

Alternatives to Kaskad Protocol MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A comprehensive MCP server providing unified access to over 144 tools for lending, trading, and staking across six major DeFi protocols on the Stacks Bitcoin Layer 2. It enables AI agents to perform complex blockchain operations and interact with the DeFi ecosystem using natural language commands.
      3
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for querying AAVE V2/V3 lending protocol and governance data via The Graph subgraphs. Exposes 14 tools and 5 guided prompts that any AI agent (Claude, Cursor, Copilot, etc.) can use to query lending markets, user positions, health factors, liquidations, flash loans, rate history, and AAVE governance — across 7 chains (Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Polygon, Optimism, Avalanche, Fantom) via
      8
      40
      88 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Agent-native, self-hosted MCP server for crypto trading and DeFi management. Enables agents to query balances, execute trades, and manage positions with a policy engine and secure key storage.
      7
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for the MAIN DEX on Base. Provides AI agents (Claude, Cursor, etc.) with tools to interact with the protocol: swap tokens, manage liquidity, enter/exit ALM strategies(10% APY), and more.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 17 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation or data query, and pairs like getUserRewards/claimRewards or getPosition/checkHealthFactor are clearly separated by action versus state or threshold alerting. No true duplicates exist, though a few overlapping data points (APY, health factor) appear in multiple tools.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Most names follow a verbNoun camelCase pattern, but the verb style is inconsistent: core lending actions use bare verbs (supply, borrow, repay, withdraw), while queries use get*, monitoring uses check*, and staking tools embed the asset name (stakeKSKD) unlike the lending verbs. The pattern is readable but not uniform enough for a higher score.

    Tool Count5/5

    17 tools is on the higher end of the ideal range but is well-scoped for a lending protocol that also includes staking, emissions, governance parameters, and rewards. Each tool covers a distinct part of the domain and none feels redundant or gratuitous.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the full lending lifecycle—supply, borrow, repay, withdraw, collateral management—plus health factor monitoring, rewards claiming, staking, and protocol context. There are no obvious missing operations that would prevent an agent from executing or monitoring core protocol flows.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues