Hyperlane MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as cross-chain-asset-transfer for moving tokens and deploy-warp-route for creating routes. However, run-relayer and run-validator could be confused as both involve running infrastructure components, though their descriptions clarify they target different roles (relayer vs. validator).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent kebab-case pattern with clear verb-noun structures, such as cross-chain-asset-transfer, deploy-warp-route, and run-relayer. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing cross-chain operations, covering key actions like asset transfers, message transfers, chain deployment, route deployment, and running relayers/validators. Each tool earns its place without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core cross-chain workflows, including asset transfers, message transfers, and infrastructure setup. A minor gap exists in monitoring or querying tools, such as checking transfer status or listing existing routes, but agents can work around this using the provided outputs like message IDs.
Average 2.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
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
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

Behavior1/5
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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's destructive or reversible, what side effects might occur, or any rate limits or constraints. The single sentence offers zero behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is too sparse to be helpful, failing to provide the necessary context that would earn its place in a tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a warp route is, what deployment entails, what happens after deployment, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by the parameter arrays and token type enums, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters ('warpChains' and 'tokenTypes') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deploys a warp route' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what a warp route is or what deployment entails. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'deploy-chain' or 'cross-chain-asset-transfer' in any meaningful way.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'deploy-chain' or 'cross-chain-asset-transfer' that might handle related functionality.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Transfers' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no mention of permissions required, whether this is an asynchronous operation, what happens on failure, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide necessary context.
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 maximally concise with a single sentence containing only four words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains zero wasted words and is perfectly front-loaded with the core 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?
For a cross-chain operation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'cross-chain message' entails, what happens after transfer, error conditions, or any operational context. The combination of minimal description with missing structured metadata creates significant gaps for an agent.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Transfers a cross-chain message' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'cross-chain-message-transfer' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'cross-chain-asset-transfer' or explain what constitutes a 'message' versus an 'asset' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. With siblings like 'cross-chain-asset-transfer', 'deploy-chain', 'deploy-warp-route', 'run-relayer', and 'run-validator', there's no indication of when message transfer is appropriate versus asset transfer or other cross-chain operations.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'runs a relayer' but doesn't explain what this operation does (e.g., starts a process, configures a service, performs a one-time action), its effects (e.g., ongoing relay, resource consumption), or any constraints (e.g., permissions, dependencies). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core action, though it lacks detail.
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 (a 'run' operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'runs' means behaviorally, what a relayer is, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's function and use.
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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('Chains to relay between', 'Name of the validator chain'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Runs a relayer for specified chains' states a verb ('runs') and resource ('relayer'), but is vague about what 'runs' entails (e.g., starts, executes, manages) and what a 'relayer' does in this context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'run-validator' or 'cross-chain-asset-transfer', leaving the specific purpose unclear.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or relationships to sibling tools like 'run-validator' or 'deploy-chain', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
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, the description carries the full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It implies an execution action ('runs') but doesn't specify if it's read-only, destructive, requires permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs validation operations.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.
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 implied by 'validator' (likely a critical operation), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The description lacks details on what validation entails, expected outcomes, or error handling, making it insufficient for informed tool selection.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single parameter 'chainName'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional context like chain format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Runs a validator for a specific chain' clearly states the action (runs) and target (validator for a chain), but it's vague about what 'runs' entails (e.g., starts, executes, validates) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'run-relayer' or 'deploy-chain'. It avoids tautology by not restating the name, but lacks specificity.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after deployment), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among siblings like 'run-relayer' or 'deploy-chain'.
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 states 'Deploys' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a deployment 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'deploying a chain' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by 6 parameters, more context is needed.
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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deploys') and resource ('a new chain to the Hyperlane network'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deploy-warp-route' or 'run-relayer', which may involve different deployment aspects.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone without distinguishing from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'transfers'), requires specific prerequisites (warp routes, balances), involves multiple transactions (one per chain hop), and provides tracking capabilities (message IDs). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or confirmation times, leaving some gaps.
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 well-structured with clear sections (FUNCTIONALITY, PREREQUISITES, etc.) and uses bullet points for readability. While comprehensive, some sections like EXAMPLE USE CASES could be more concise. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with core functionality, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cross-chain transfers, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job covering prerequisites, parameters, behavior, and examples. It explains the multi-step nature and output structure. However, it lacks details on error cases, timeouts, or specific chain naming conventions, which could be important for robust usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains parameter purposes with examples (e.g., 'USDC from Ethereum to Polygon'), clarifies units ('wei or smallest token units'), and specifies default behavior for recipient. This provides practical guidance that enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.
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 with specific verbs ('transfers tokens/assets between multiple blockchain networks') and resources ('using Hyperlane's cross-chain infrastructure'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on asset transfers rather than message transfers, chain deployment, or route deployment, making the differentiation explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, including prerequisites like requiring a warp route (with a specific alternative tool named: 'deploy-warp-route') and conditions like sufficient balances. It also outlines use cases and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on asset transfers rather than other cross-chain operations.
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

Hyperlane MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![Hyperlane MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Suryansh-23/hyperlane-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Suryansh-23/hyperlane-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Hyperlane MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Suryansh-23/hyperlane-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Suryansh-23/hyperlane-mcp)

shields.io Endpoint

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

[![Hyperlane MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglama.ai%2Fmcp%2Fservers%2FSuryansh-23%2Fhyperlane-mcp%2Fbadges%2Fshields.json)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Suryansh-23/hyperlane-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/Suryansh-23/hyperlane-mcp'

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