Katana MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: bridging assets, swapping on SushiSwap (with a separate quote tool), and Yearn vault actions (deposit, withdraw, info). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern (e.g., bridgeAssets, getTokenBalances, depositToYearnVault). Verbs like 'get', 'execute', 'deposit', 'withdraw' are used consistently.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering bridging, swapping, and yield operations, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows: bridging, swapping with quotes, and full Yearn vault management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no approval tool or token listing), but agents can execute the primary actions without dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- 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, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (gas, approval), auth needs, or return format. Minimal behavioral info.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Could benefit from more context while remaining concise, but it is not overly verbose.
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?
Lacks explanation of return values, preconditions (e.g., token approval), or output. For a swap execution tool, this is insufficient completeness.
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 coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are clear and illustrative. The description adds no value beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Execute a token swap') and specific resource ('SushiSwap on Katana network'), distinguishing it from quote and bridge tools.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like getSushiQuote for quotes or bridgeAssets for bridging. The agent lacks context on workflow.
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 provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'Get detailed information' without specifying what fields or structure are returned, whether it is a read-only operation, or any potential performance implications. Lacks essential behavioral context for an agent.
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?
One concise sentence that conveys the primary purpose. No extraneous words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding structure or clarifying what 'detailed information' includes, but it remains 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?
Lacks output schema and does not describe the returned data shape. Given no annotations and a single optional parameter, the description should at least hint at the fields or use cases (e.g., APY, TVL). Incomplete for an agent to reliably interpret results.
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% for the single optional parameter vaultAddress, which is already well-described in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed information about Yearn vaults'), and scope ('on Katana network'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like depositToYearnVault, withdrawFromYearnVault, and getUserYearnPositions which focus on user actions or positions rather than vault info.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to know vault addresses, or when it is appropriate to call before deposit or withdrawal operations. The description implies no exclusions but provides no explicit 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 present, so the description must disclose behavior. The description only states it withdraws tokens, implying a destructive mutation, but does not mention any required approvals, gas costs, or potential side effects.
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 short sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks structured detail for a complex operation, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain the return value, error states, or the effect of different withdraw types, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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% (all parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('withdraw') and the resource ('tokens from a Yearn vault on Katana chain'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like depositToYearnVault.
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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., need to have deposited tokens, need vault address), and no explanation of when to use each withdraw type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that it auto-generates a deposit address and sends tokens, and that tokens become ETH on Katana. However, it omits details like permission requirements, reversibility, and error handling.
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?
Two sentences pack essential actions and a note about bridging to ETH. Concise but could be more structured; front-loads the main action.
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?
Missing output format or return behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash), but it only says to 'inform user'. Also unclear if synchronous.
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 covers all three parameters (asset, chain, amount) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond naming supported chains implicitly, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 bridges tokens to Katana, generates a deposit address, and sends tokens from the wallet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swaps and vault deposits.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, chain specifics, or when not to bridge.
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 the full burden. It only states basic functionality and token constraints, omitting important details like approval requirements, failure modes, gas implications, or return behavior for a deposit 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 consists of two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and constraining usage. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no redundant 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 complexity of a DeFi deposit operation, the description lacks critical context such as output (e.g., transaction hash), prerequisites (e.g., token approval), and potential error conditions. It is adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for safe and informed usage.
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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond restating what the schema already provides (e.g., supported tokens). It does not enhance understanding of the 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 clearly states the action ('Deposit tokens into a Yearn vault'), specifies the network ('Katana network'), and lists the supported tokens, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bridgeAssets or withdrawFromYearnVault.
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 that tokens must already be on Katana but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over bridging or swapping alternatives. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance and alternative recommendations, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
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. It reveals that the tool uses the private key from the environment, but does not disclose error scenarios, rate limits, or whether it modifies state. It implies a read operation but lacks explicit safety guarantees.
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?
A single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint (wallet from environment). No extraneous words.
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 sufficient for a simple read tool with no parameters, but it lacks details on output format, network prerequisites, and error handling. Given no output schema, the description could be more complete.
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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context that the address is derived from environment, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no further param information needed.
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 gets token balances for the user's wallet on the Katana network, using the address from the private key in the environment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bridgeAssets and depositToYearnVault which are write operations.
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 checking token balances on Katana, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like getUserYearnPositions or getSushiQuote. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It states 'get a quote', suggesting a read-only operation, but provides no additional behavioral traits (e.g., network latency, authentication needs). No contradictions.
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 sentence, highly concise with no wasted words, and front-loads the core 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?
For a simple quote tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys intent but lacks details on what the quote returns (e.g., price, pool). It is minimally complete but not rich.
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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond restating the human-readable format for amount. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 gets a quote for swapping tokens on SushiSwap on Katana network, specifying the verb, resource, and context, and distinguishes it from siblings like executeSushiSwap.
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 the tool is for obtaining a quote before swapping, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like executeSushiSwap or other tools, leaving usage context ambiguous.
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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it 'gets information' and uses the private key from environment, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires specific permissions. For a read operation, this omission is significant. A 2 is appropriate as it adds some context but fails to assure agents of safety.
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 sentence of 16 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no filler. It is optimally concise for the information conveyed.
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 no output schema, the description could mention what kind of information is returned (e.g., position details, balances). It is complete enough for a simple tool with one parameter, but the lack of return value context leaves agents uncertain about what to expect. Thus, a 3—adequate but with room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter exists, and the schema description (100% coverage) already explains it well: 'Optional: Wallet address to check Yearn positions for (defaults to address from private key in env)'. The description reinforces this by mentioning the environment address, adding no contradiction. Parameter semantics are fully addressed.
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: 'Get detailed information about your Yearn vault positions'. It specifies the resource (Yearn vault positions) and the verb (Get). It also distinguishes from siblings like depositToYearnVault, withdrawFromYearnVault, and getYearnVaultInfo by focusing on positions rather than actions or vault metadata.
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 implies usage context by noting the address default from environment. It doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are action-oriented (bridge, deposit, withdraw, swap) vs this read-only query, so the usage is implicitly clear. Lack of explicit when-not or alternatives prevents a 5.
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:

[![Katana_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PlayAINetwork/Katana_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PlayAINetwork/Katana_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Katana_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PlayAINetwork/Katana_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PlayAINetwork/Katana_mcp)

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/PlayAINetwork/Katana_mcp'

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