Chronos es un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) diseñado específicamente para la blockchain de Stellar y para su integración con Claude Desktop y aplicaciones de IA similares. Chronos dota a tu asistente de IA de herramientas en cadena que permiten interacciones optimizadas con la red Stellar.
Chronos MCP ofrece las siguientes capacidades:
Conéctese a Stellar Wallets: conéctese de forma segura a su billetera usando una clave secreta.
Listado de tokens de billetera: recupera y enumera todos los tokens guardados en una billetera Stellar.
Consulta de saldos: obtenga saldos en tiempo real de su XLM y otros activos.
Transferir fondos: inicie transferencias entre billeteras Stellar con facilidad.
Chronos está diseñado para ser extensible y funciona como un paquete Node.js estándar, lo que permite implementarlo, instalarlo e integrarlo fácilmente, de forma similar a otros servidores MCP como base-mcp.
Related MCP server: AMOCA Solana MCP Server
Integración con Stellar: interactúa completamente con la red principal de Stellar a través de la API de Horizon.
Implementación fácil: publique e instale Chronos usando npm.
Compatibilidad con Claude Desktop: se integra perfectamente con Claude Desktop actualizando la configuración del servidor MCP.
Arquitectura extensible: diseñada para futuras mejoras e integraciones de nuevas herramientas.
Node.js (v14 o superior)
npm
Credenciales de la billetera Stellar (clave secreta para la conexión)
Conectividad a Internet para interactuar con la red Stellar
Instalar Chronos globalmente:
npm install -g chronos-mcpO úselo directamente con npx:
npx chronos-mcp@latestClonar el repositorio:
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/chronos-mcp.git
cd chronos-mcpInstalar dependencias:
npm installConstruir el proyecto:
npm run build(Opcional) Enlace global para un acceso más fácil:
npm linkTambién puedes ejecutar Chronos MCP usando Docker:
Construya la imagen de Docker:
docker build -t chronos-mcp .Ejecute el contenedor:
docker run -it --rm chronos-mcpPara obtener instrucciones más detalladas sobre el uso de Docker con Chronos MCP, incluida la configuración de Docker Compose y la integración con Claude Desktop, consulte la Guía de uso de Docker .
Para comprobar si su configuración de Docker funciona localmente, siga las instrucciones paso a paso de la Guía de pruebas de Docker . Esta guía incluye instrucciones para crear la imagen de Docker, ejecutar el contenedor y probar su funcionalidad.
Chronos MCP utiliza variables de entorno para la configuración, especialmente para información confidencial como la clave secreta de Stellar. El proyecto utiliza dotenv para cargar variables de entorno desde un archivo .env durante el desarrollo.
Para configurar las variables de entorno:
Cree un archivo .env en la raíz del proyecto:
STELLAR_SECRET_KEY=your_stellar_secret_key
STELLAR_NETWORK=mainnetEstas variables se cargarán automáticamente cuando se inicie la aplicación.
Al utilizar Docker, puede proporcionar variables de entorno de varias maneras:
Uso del indicador --env-file : docker run -it --rm --env-file .env chronos-mcp
Uso de la directiva env_file en docker-compose.yml
Configuración de variables individuales con el indicador -e : docker run -it --rm -e STELLAR_SECRET_KEY=your_key chronos-mcp
Para utilizar Chronos con Claude Desktop, actualice el archivo de configuración de Claude Desktop ubicado en:
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Ventanas: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Linux: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Configuración de muestra para 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": []
}
}
}Para la integración de Docker con Claude Desktop, puedes usar:
{
"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 expone las siguientes herramientas a través de su interfaz MCP:
Se conecta a una billetera Stellar usando la clave secreta.
Ejemplo de comando:
"Conectar mi billetera usando la clave secreta ______"
Enumera todos los tokens y activos en la billetera Stellar especificada.
Ejemplo de comando:
"Listar mis tokens de billetera"
Recupera el saldo de XLM y cualquier otro activo.
Ejemplo de comando:
"¿Cuál es mi saldo XLM actual?"
Transfiere fondos de tu billetera a otra billetera Stellar.
Parámetros:
secretKey : la clave secreta de tu billetera.
destinationAddress : la dirección de la billetera del destinatario.
amount : La cantidad a transferir.
asset(opcional) : activo a transferir (predeterminado XLM).
Ejemplo de comando:
"Transferir 0,5 XLM a [dirección de la billetera de destino]"
Para probar Chronos MCP localmente:
npm testEsto ejecutará el conjunto de pruebas del proyecto y verificará que su servidor esté funcionando como se espera.
Para probar la configuración de Docker localmente, consulte la Guía de Pruebas de Docker para obtener instrucciones detalladas. La guía cubre:
Construyendo la imagen de Docker
Ejecutar el contenedor con Docker Compose
Probando la funcionalidad del contenedor
Solución de problemas comunes
También puede utilizar el script test-client.js incluido para probar el contenedor Docker:
node test-client.jsEste script envía una solicitud MCP simple al contenedor Docker y muestra la respuesta.
Chronos MCP está diseñado para funcionar como un paquete estándar de Node.js y puede publicarse en npm. Una vez publicado (por ejemplo, mediante npm publish ), Chronos puede instalarse globalmente o usarse mediante npx, como cualquier otro servidor MCP.
Para la implementación de producción, considere envolver Chronos en un servicio de sistema (usando systemd, launchd, etc.) para reinicios y monitoreo automáticos.
Chronos se diseñó pensando en la extensibilidad. Para añadir nuevas herramientas:
Crea un nuevo directorio en la carpeta src/tools .
Implemente su herramienta (incluya un index.ts , schemas.ts y handlers.ts ).
Exporte su herramienta en src/tools/index.ts .
Actualice el README con la documentación y ejemplos de su herramienta.
Escriba pruebas para garantizar que su nueva herramienta funcione correctamente.
Este proyecto está licenciado bajo la licencia MIT .
¡Agradecemos sus contribuciones! Consulte CONTRIBUTING.md para obtener información sobre cómo informar problemas, enviar solicitudes de incorporación de cambios y otras instrucciones para contribuir.
Este README está diseñado específicamente para Chronos MCP y describe su implementación como un paquete Node.js, integración con Claude Desktop y un conjunto completo de características para interactuar con la cadena de bloques Stellar.
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.
