XRPL MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to XRPL MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceProvides read-only, real-time access to TON blockchain data including wallet balances, token holdings, transactions, prices, NFTs, DNS resolution, and address validation, without requiring private keys.813 npmMIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceRead-only XRP Ledger analytics — signed snapshots, AMM pools, token volume, whale activity, NFT tracking. Proof-annotated. Public beta 2026-09.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceProvides access to Mina blockchain data, enabling queries for events, actions, and network state information through a standardized interface.35 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides read-only access to Solana on-chain data, enabling natural language queries for wallet balances, token holdings, prices, transactions, and more via MCP-compatible clients.8MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables interaction with XRP Ledger blockchain for managing wallets, creating and trading tokens, minting and managing NFTs, and executing DEX trades through 15+ comprehensive tools.7 npm2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables users to inspect Solana token mint accounts, preflight transfer actions, and verify outcome receipts without holding any keys or signing transactions.Apache 2.0
TDQS
Scored across 12 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource or aspect of XRPL, from account info to NFTs to order books. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a snake_case get_<resource> pattern with the sole exception of ping, which is a minor deviation. The naming is otherwise highly consistent and predictable.
With 12 tools covering accounts, transactions, NFTs, DEX, ledger, and server state, the count is well-scoped for a query-focused XRPL server and feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides broad read access to XRPL data but lacks any write or transaction submission capabilities, such as sending payments or creating offers. This is a notable gap if the server is intended for full lifecycle management, though it may be acceptable for a read-only explorer.