Skip to main content
Glama
dziuba0x

flare-mcp

by dziuba0x

Related Servers

Alternatives to flare-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for monitoring Flare's interoperable asset ecosystem, providing real-time on-chain data for FAssets, FTSOv2 prices, and bridge states. It exposes 8 MCP tools for anomaly detection, risk scoring, and automated alerts.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Solana DeFi Intelligence MCP server enabling natural language queries for wallet analytics, DeFi positions, protocol metrics, and token prices.
      8
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Universal MCP server for Mantle yield data, enabling users to fetch health status, dashboard summaries, and detailed opportunity information through natural language.
      7
      -
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server providing tools to search, get, and aggregate Merkl opportunities. Enables querying campaign data, APRs, TVL, and more through natural language.
      13
      100 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 24 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Most tools serve clearly distinct purposes, but there is real overlap: get_fassets_status is largely superseded by fassets_system_state, get_flr_balance is a subset of get_flr_stake_info, and get_ftso_feed versus get_ftso_anchor_feed are easy to confuse without reading descriptions. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always crisp.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The set is consistently snake_case, but the naming pattern is mixed: some tools start with get_, others use domain prefixes like fdc_/ fassets_/ evidence_, and songbird_fcc_registry does not follow a verb pattern at all. Word order also varies, such as fdc_web2json_request versus fdc_request_attestation.

    Tool Count3/5

    24 tools is at the heavy end of the acceptable range, and the server covers several protocol families rather than one focused workflow. Each family has useful tools, but the broad scope and near-redundant status/balance tools make the set feel slightly bloated.

    Completeness4/5

    Core workflows are well covered: reading state, requesting and retrieving FDC proofs, verifying proofs against the on-chain Relay root, and bundling evidence for downstream verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated generic verifier for Payment or AddressValidity attestations, but agents can work around them.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues