Chronos ist ein auf die Stellar-Blockchain zugeschnittener Model Context Protocol (MCP)-Server, der speziell für die Integration mit Claude Desktop und ähnlichen KI-Anwendungen entwickelt wurde. Chronos stattet Ihren KI-Assistenten mit On-Chain-Tools aus, die eine optimierte Interaktion mit dem Stellar-Netzwerk ermöglichen.
Chronos MCP bietet die folgenden Funktionen:
Mit Stellar Wallets verbinden: Stellen Sie mithilfe eines geheimen Schlüssels eine sichere Verbindung zu Ihrem Wallet her.
Wallet-Token auflisten: Alle in einem Stellar-Wallet gespeicherten Token abrufen und auflisten.
Salden abfragen: Erhalten Sie Echtzeitsalden für Ihr XLM und andere Vermögenswerte.
Geld überweisen: Leiten Sie problemlos Überweisungen zwischen Stellar-Wallets ein.
Chronos ist erweiterbar und funktioniert als Standard-Node.js-Paket, sodass es einfach bereitgestellt, installiert und integriert werden kann – ähnlich wie andere MCP-Server wie Base-MCP.
Related MCP server: AMOCA Solana MCP Server
Stellar-Integration: Vollständige Interaktion mit dem Stellar-Mainnet über die Horizon-API.
Einfache Bereitstellung: Veröffentlichen und installieren Sie Chronos mit npm.
Kompatibilität mit Claude Desktop: Nahtlose Integration mit Claude Desktop durch Aktualisierung der MCP-Serverkonfiguration.
Erweiterbare Architektur: Entwickelt für zukünftige Erweiterungen und die Integration neuer Tools.
Node.js (v14 oder höher)
npm
Stellar Wallet-Anmeldeinformationen (geheimer Schlüssel für die Verbindung)
Internetverbindung zur Interaktion mit dem Stellar-Netzwerk
Installieren Sie Chronos global:
npm install -g chronos-mcpOder verwenden Sie es direkt mit npx:
npx chronos-mcp@latestKlonen Sie das Repository:
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/chronos-mcp.git
cd chronos-mcpInstallieren Sie Abhängigkeiten:
npm installErstellen Sie das Projekt:
npm run build(Optional) Globaler Link für einfacheren Zugriff:
npm linkSie können Chronos MCP auch mit Docker ausführen:
Erstellen Sie das Docker-Image:
docker build -t chronos-mcp .Führen Sie den Container aus:
docker run -it --rm chronos-mcpAusführlichere Anweisungen zur Verwendung von Docker mit Chronos MCP, einschließlich der Einrichtung von Docker Compose und der Integration mit Claude Desktop, finden Sie im Docker-Nutzungshandbuch .
Um zu testen, ob Ihr Docker-Setup lokal funktioniert, folgen Sie den Schritt-für-Schritt-Anweisungen im Docker-Testhandbuch . Dieses Handbuch enthält Anweisungen zum Erstellen des Docker-Images, zum Ausführen des Containers und zum Testen seiner Funktionalität.
Chronos MCP verwendet Umgebungsvariablen zur Konfiguration, insbesondere für sensible Informationen wie Ihren Stellar-Geheimschlüssel. Das Projekt verwendet dotenv , um während der Entwicklung Umgebungsvariablen aus einer .env Datei zu laden.
So konfigurieren Sie Umgebungsvariablen:
Erstellen Sie eine .env Datei im Projektstammverzeichnis:
STELLAR_SECRET_KEY=your_stellar_secret_key
STELLAR_NETWORK=mainnetDiese Variablen werden beim Start der Anwendung automatisch geladen.
Wenn Sie Docker verwenden, können Sie Umgebungsvariablen auf verschiedene Arten bereitstellen:
Verwenden des Flags --env-file : docker run -it --rm --env-file .env chronos-mcp
Verwenden der env_file -Direktive in docker-compose.yml
Festlegen einzelner Variablen mit dem Flag -e : docker run -it --rm -e STELLAR_SECRET_KEY=your_key chronos-mcp
Um Chronos mit Claude Desktop zu verwenden, aktualisieren Sie Ihre Claude Desktop-Konfigurationsdatei unter:
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Linux: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Beispielkonfiguration für Claude Desktop:
{
<<<<<<< HEAD
"mcpServers": {
"stellar": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["chronos-mcp@latest"],
"env": {
"STELLAR_NETWORK": "mainnet",
"STELLAR_SECRET_KEY": "your_stellar_secret_key"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}Für die Docker-Integration mit Claude Desktop können Sie Folgendes verwenden:
{
"mcpServers": {
"stellar": {
"command": "docker",
"args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "--env-file", "/path/to/your/.env", "chronos-mcp"],
"env": {
"STELLAR_NETWORK": "mainnet"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
=======
"mcpServers": {
"stellar": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"chronos-mcp@latest"
],
"env": {
"STELLAR_NETWORK": "mainnet",
"STELLAR_SECRET_KEY": "XXXX"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
>>>>>>> b2501026b3b5ef4c512fceaf340f53b5102a57f9
}
}Chronos MCP stellt über seine MCP-Schnittstelle die folgenden Tools bereit:
Stellt mithilfe des geheimen Schlüssels eine Verbindung zu einer Stellar-Wallet her.
Beispielbefehl:
„Verbinde mein Wallet mit dem geheimen Schlüssel ______“
Listet alle Token und Vermögenswerte in der angegebenen Stellar-Wallet auf.
Beispielbefehl:
„Liste meine Wallet-Token auf“
Ruft den Kontostand für XLM und alle anderen Vermögenswerte ab.
Beispielbefehl:
„Wie hoch ist mein aktuelles XLM-Guthaben?“
Überweist Geld von Ihrem Wallet auf ein anderes Stellar-Wallet.
Parameter:
secretKey : Der geheime Schlüssel Ihres Wallets.
destinationAddress : Die Wallet-Adresse des Empfängers.
amount : Der zu überweisende Betrag.
asset(optional) : Zu übertragendes Asset (standardmäßig XLM).
Beispielbefehl:
„Überweisen Sie 0,5 XLM an [Ziel-Wallet-Adresse]“
So testen Sie Chronos MCP lokal:
npm testDadurch wird die Testsuite des Projekts ausgeführt und überprüft, ob Ihr Server wie erwartet funktioniert.
Um das Docker-Setup lokal zu testen, finden Sie detaillierte Anweisungen im Docker-Testhandbuch . Das Handbuch behandelt:
Erstellen des Docker-Images
Ausführen des Containers mit Docker Compose
Testen der Containerfunktionalität
Beheben häufiger Probleme
Sie können auch das enthaltene Skript test-client.js verwenden, um den Docker-Container zu testen:
node test-client.jsDieses Skript sendet eine einfache MCP-Anfrage an den Docker-Container und zeigt die Antwort an.
Chronos MCP ist als Standard-Node.js-Paket konzipiert und kann auf npm veröffentlicht werden. Nach der Veröffentlichung (z. B. über npm publish ) kann Chronos global installiert oder wie jeder andere MCP-Server über npx verwendet werden.
Erwägen Sie für die Produktionsbereitstellung, Chronos in einen Systemdienst einzubinden (mit systemd, launchd usw.), um automatische Neustarts und Überwachung zu ermöglichen.
Chronos ist auf Erweiterbarkeit ausgelegt. So fügen Sie neue Tools hinzu:
Erstellen Sie ein neues Verzeichnis im Ordner src/tools .
Implementieren Sie Ihr Tool (fügen Sie index.ts , schemas.ts und handlers.ts ein).
Exportieren Sie Ihr Tool in src/tools/index.ts .
Aktualisieren Sie die README-Datei mit der Dokumentation und Beispielen Ihres Tools.
Schreiben Sie Tests, um sicherzustellen, dass Ihr neues Tool ordnungsgemäß funktioniert.
Dieses Projekt ist unter der MIT-Lizenz lizenziert.
Beiträge sind willkommen! Bitte konsultieren Sie CONTRIBUTING.md für Richtlinien zum Melden von Problemen, Einreichen von Pull Requests und weitere Anweisungen zum Beitragen.
────────────────────────────── Diese README-Datei ist speziell auf Chronos MCP zugeschnitten und beschreibt die Bereitstellung als Node.js-Paket, die Integration mit Claude Desktop und einen umfassenden Satz von Funktionen zur Interaktion mit der Stellar-Blockchain.
Connect to a Stellar wallet using secret key
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secretKey | Yes | Stellar wallet secret key |
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 the tool connects using a secret key but doesn't describe what happens after connection (e.g., session persistence, error handling, or security implications like key storage). For a tool handling sensitive authentication with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying the tool's purpose clearly without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of wallet connection (involving authentication and potential security concerns), no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, wallet details) or behavioral aspects like error cases, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'secretKey' documented as 'Stellar wallet secret key'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats that connection uses a secret key. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Connect to') and target resource ('a Stellar wallet'), specifying it uses a secret key. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balances or transfer_funds by focusing on authentication rather than querying or transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential other connection methods (e.g., via public key or mnemonic), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., needing a secret key), when not to use it (e.g., if already connected), or how it relates to sibling tools like get_balances. The description implies usage for wallet connection but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get balances for all tokens in a Stellar wallet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publicKey | Yes | Stellar wallet public key |
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 the tool's function but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get balances for all tokens in a Stellar wallet'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that interacts with financial data. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., balance amounts, token details), error handling, or dependencies on other tools like 'connect_wallet'. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'publicKey' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or context about the wallet). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get balances') and resource ('all tokens in a Stellar wallet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tokens' (which might list available tokens vs. getting balances), leaving room for potential confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected wallet via 'connect_wallet'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_tokens' or 'transfer_funds', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all tokens in a Stellar wallet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publicKey | Yes | Stellar wallet public key |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. While 'List' suggests a safe read, the lack of details on permissions or response structure is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'tokens' entail (e.g., types, formats), authentication needs, or response behavior. For a tool with one parameter but no structured safety or output info, more context is needed to guide the agent adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'publicKey' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for a Stellar wallet, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('tokens in a Stellar wallet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_balances' by focusing specifically on tokens rather than general balances. However, it doesn't specify whether this includes all token types or just specific ones, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_balances' or 'connect_wallet'. The description implies usage for token listing but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a connected wallet) or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer context without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Transfer funds to another Stellar wallet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secretKey | Yes | Source wallet secret key | |
| destinationAddress | Yes | Destination wallet public key | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to transfer | |
| asset | No | Asset to transfer (defaults to XLM) |
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 the tool performs a fund transfer but fails to mention critical aspects such as whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, authentication requirements (implied by 'secretKey' but not explicitly stated), potential rate limits, transaction fees, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, security implications, or operational constraints, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'secretKey' as source wallet secret key, 'destinationAddress' as destination public key). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('transfer funds') and target resource ('to another Stellar wallet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect_wallet' or 'get_balances', which are distinct operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 or any contextual prerequisites. It lacks explicit instructions on usage scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'list_tokens', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
connect_walletget_balanceslist_tokenstransfer_fundsScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: connect_wallet handles authentication, get_balances retrieves token balances, list_tokens enumerates available tokens, and transfer_funds performs transactions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (connect_wallet, get_balances, list_tokens, transfer_funds) with clear, descriptive names. The naming convention is uniform and predictable throughout the set.
Four tools are reasonable for a Stellar wallet server, covering core operations like connection, balance checking, token listing, and transfers. However, the scope feels slightly thin as it lacks tools for advanced wallet management (e.g., transaction history, account details).
The tools cover essential wallet operations: authentication, balance retrieval, token listing, and fund transfers. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for viewing transaction history or managing wallet settings, but agents can perform basic workflows without significant dead ends.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
The OpenZeppelin Stellar Contracts MCP server generates secure smart contracts for the Stellar blockchain based on OpenZeppelin templates. It integrates with AI assistants to automatically enforce OpenZeppelin's security best practices, style rules, and standards at every prompt, enabling developers to create production-ready Fungible Token, Non-Fungible Token, and Stablecoin contracts through AI-driven workflows.
The Telnyx MCP server is an official implementation of the Model Context Protocol that enables AI clients (like Claude Desktop, Cursor, and OpenAI Agents) to interact with Telnyx's telephony, messaging, and AI assistant APIs. It provides comprehensive capabilities including making and managing phone calls, sending SMS/MMS messages, purchasing and configuring phone numbers, creating AI assistants with custom instructions, managing cloud storage buckets, scraping and embedding website content, and handling integration secrets. The server exists as both a local implementation and a remotely hosted version, allowing developers to integrate real-world communication infrastructure directly into AI applications.
