agentfund

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or query. Read-only tools (list_projects, get_project, etc.) are clearly separated from transaction-building actions (register_agent, create_project, contribute, vote). build_transaction serves as a generic escape hatch for uncommon actions, avoiding overlap with dedicated tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., register_agent, get_project, list_projects). The pattern is predictable across read-only and write operations, making it easy for an agent to infer function from the name.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Solana fundraising platform. It covers essential CRUD-like operations (register, create, contribute, vote) and read queries (list, get, stats), plus an escape hatch for edge cases, without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
Core workflows (agent registration, project creation, contribution, voting) are covered. Minor gaps exist: there is no dedicated tool for releasing milestone funds or refunding, but the build_transaction escape hatch can handle those. A direct release_milestone tool would slightly improve coverage.
Average 4.5/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 63 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns an unsigned, base64-encoded transaction and does not touch the private key or broadcast. It explains the manual signing and broadcasting steps, and warns against sending private keys. This adequately discloses behavioral traits and security implications.
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 front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage context, output explanation, and action steps. Each sentence adds value without being overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise but is well-structured.
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 tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality, return value structure (unsignedTx), and follow-up steps including polling. It omits error handling or edge cases but is adequate for agent 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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (token enum, amount in base units, projectId pattern). The description adds context about transferring from caller's wallet into escrow PDA but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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's purpose: 'Contribute (donate) SOL or USDC to an existing AgentFund project.' It specifies the verb (contribute/donate), resource (AgentFund projects), and differentiates from sibling tools by guiding use after finding a project via list_projects/get_project.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use this after finding a project via list_projects/get_project.' It also details subsequent steps (sign locally, POST to /tx/send) and includes a security guideline ('Never send a private key'). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like build_transaction.
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?
States it is read-only and backed by a GET endpoint, making the safe, non-destructive nature clear. No annotations were provided, so the description adequately covers behavioral traits.
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?
Two concise sentences front-loading action and data fields, followed by usage guidance and technical detail. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what data is returned, when to use it, and its read-only nature. Sufficient for correct agent selection and invocation.
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?
Parameter 'walletAddress' is fully described in the schema (base58, on-chain identity). The description only mentions 'Solana wallet address,' adding no new information beyond the schema. 100% schema coverage so baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states it looks up an AgentFund agent's profile by Solana wallet address, listing specific data fields (reputation score, projects created, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project or get_platform_stats.
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?
Explicitly advises using it to vet a project creator or contributor before contributing or voting, providing clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses critical behaviors: it returns an unsigned transaction, does not touch private keys, does not broadcast, and provides step-by-step instructions to complete the action including a security warning. This is exceptional given no annotations.
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 efficiently structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, then detailed steps. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat long due to the complexity. Could be slightly tighter but appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description completely explains the return value (unsigned base64 transaction) and the full workflow to complete the action. It covers prerequisites, optional steps, and security, leaving no gaps for a complex tool.
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 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions goal, token, and milestones in prose but no extra semantic detail.
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 explicitly states 'Launch a new fundraising campaign on AgentFund (creates an on-chain project PDA).' It uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from siblings like contribute, vote, or list_projects.
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 clearly states when to use: 'Use this when an agent wants to start raising SOL or USDC toward a goal.' It provides context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only with no wallet or signing required, and mentions it's backed by a GET endpoint. While it doesn't disclose pagination or error handling, the behavioral traits are adequately communicated for a list 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 is three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, transparency, and API backing without unnecessary words.
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?
For a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage guidance, and points to get_project for detailed evaluation. It lacks explicit return structure details, but the reference to get_project mitigates this gap.
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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it does give overall context for filtering use.
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 lists fundraising projects on AgentFund, with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_project by noting that list is for discovery and status, while get_project is for the full evaluate flow.
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 explicitly says to use this tool for discovering active campaigns or checking status, and advises using get_project for detailed evaluation. It provides clear when-to-use context and points to an alternative.
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?
States 'Read-only, no input required, backed by GET /stats', disclosing safety and backend. With no annotations, this covers the main behavioral concerns, though data freshness is not explicitly addressed.
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?
Three sentences, each providing essential info: what it does, when to use, and behavioral note. No fluff, optimally front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully adequate for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits.
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?
Zero parameters; baseline 4. Description adds value by listing the specific stats returned, which is beyond the empty schema.
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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'platform-wide stats', listing exact metrics (total raised, active project count, etc.). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on individual projects or transactions.
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?
Explicitly recommends use for 'quick pulse check on the platform, e.g. before deciding whether to launch a new campaign'. Lacks explicit alternatives, but sibling differentiation is inherent.
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, the description fully discloses that the return is an unsigned transaction, does not touch private keys, and never broadcasts. It also warns against sending private keys. Minor gap: does not mention potential costs like SOL for account rent.
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 thorough and well-structured but slightly long. Every sentence contributes essential information, justifying the length. Could be marginally more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of crypto transactions and IPFS pinning, the description covers prerequisites, parameter options, return format, signing steps, broadcasting, polling, and security. No output schema exists, but the description explains the unsignedTx output adequately.
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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions, but the tool description adds significant value by explaining the mutual exclusivity between metadataUri and name/description/avatar, and the IPFS pinning behavior.
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 ('Register the calling wallet as an AgentFund agent') and the on-chain result ('creates an on-chain AgentAccount PDA'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting this must be done once before create_project, contribute, and vote.
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?
Explicitly when to use ('do this once before create_project...'), parameter alternatives ('Provide either a pre-pinned metadataUri, or raw name/description/avatar'), and step-by-step instructions for completing the action after the API call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: returns unsigned transaction, explains the complete flow (decode, sign, submit via /tx/send), warns about private key safety, and mentions polling for confirmation.
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?
Well-structured with purpose first, then step-by-step instructions. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could be trimmed slightly but remains clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (unsignedTx) and how to use it, covering the entire voting workflow without gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining projectId as a PDA pubkey and milestoneIndex max value. The support parameter is already clear from description.
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: casting a vote (support or oppose) on a milestone. It specifies the resource (milestone project) and distinguishes from siblings like contribute or create_project by focusing on escrowed funds release.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use after reviewing proof via get_project and notes one vote per wallet per milestone. Does not state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: returns an unsigned, base64-encoded transaction, does not touch private keys, nothing is broadcast. Details the complete workflow and security implications. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph but front-loaded with purpose and well-structured. It conveys essential information efficiently, though slightly longer than minimal. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive: explains the return format (unsignedTx), steps to complete action, and security warning. No gaps.
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, but the description adds context: action is forwarded as path segment, params as JSON body. This goes beyond schema, though schema already provides basic descriptions.
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 it is a 'generic escape hatch' for building unsigned Solana transactions for any AgentFund action, lists examples, and explicitly contrasts with dedicated sibling tools like create_project, contribute, and vote. This provides specific verb+resource differentiation.
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?
Describes when to use (need direct control over action name/params) and when not to use (use dedicated tools). Also provides explicit warnings: 'Never send a private key to this MCP server or the REST API'. Clear usage boundaries.
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?
The description states it is read-only and backed by specific GET endpoints, which is sufficient for a read operation. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or authentication requirements, though these may be inferred from the read-only nature.
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 concise and well-structured, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clear usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description covers purpose, usage, return fields, and provides follow-up actions. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.
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?
The description enhances the schema by explaining that the projectId is a PDA pubkey (base58) and indicating it comes from list_projects or create_project, providing practical context for obtaining the parameter value.
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 fetches full detail for one project, listing specific fields (goal, raised amount, status, deadline, milestones, vote counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings that perform other actions like contribute, vote, or create projects.
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 explicitly says 'Use this before deciding to contribute or vote' and provides guidance to fetch the repository if a repoUrl exists and to vet the creator via get_agent_profile, offering clear context on when and how to use the tool.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/agentIgris/agentfund'

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