MIST.cash MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: calcular_hash_transaccion computes a transaction hash, generar_secreto_transaccion creates a cryptographic secret, obtener_assets_transaccion fetches assets, obtener_configuracion_chamber retrieves contract configuration, and verificar_existencia_transaccion verifies transaction existence. The descriptions explicitly differentiate their functions, preventing agent misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent Spanish verb_noun pattern (e.g., calcular_hash_transaccion, generar_secreto_transaccion) using snake_case throughout. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its apparent domain of transaction and contract operations in MIST.cash. Each tool serves a specific, non-trivial function, and the count is neither too sparse nor bloated, fitting typical expectations for a focused MCP server.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core transaction operations (hash calculation, secret generation, asset fetching, existence verification) and contract configuration retrieval, providing a solid foundation. A minor gap exists in lacking tools for creating or modifying transactions, but agents can likely work around this for basic query and verification tasks.
Average 3.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without details on traits like computational cost, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate as it misses critical behavioral context.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 required parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the hash algorithm, output format, or potential errors, leaving significant gaps for the 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or their role in hash calculation. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Calculate') and the target ('unique hash of a transaction'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'verificar_existencia_transaccion' or 'generar_secreto_transaccion', which might involve related transaction operations, so it lacks sibling differentiation for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over sibling tools like 'verificar_existencia_transaccion' for hash verification. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Creates a cryptographic secret' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. For a tool that likely involves sensitive data (transaction secrets), this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from parameter mentions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that creates cryptographic secrets (likely a mutation with security implications), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error conditions, return values, or important behavioral traits like whether the secret is stored or transient. For this complexity level, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('claiming_key' and 'recipient_address'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning these parameters in context ('using a claiming key and recipient address'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a transaction secret for private payments' specifies the verb (generate) and resource (transaction secret) with context (private payments). It distinguishes from siblings like 'calcular_hash_transaccion' (calculate hash) and 'verificar_existencia_transaccion' (verify existence) by focusing on secret generation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description mentions 'private payments' as context but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'obtener_assets_transaccion' (get transaction assets). Without explicit when/when-not instructions, usage is implied but not well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the configuration isn't found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and specifies the retrieved data. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what configuration is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or response format. For a read-only tool with minimal parameters, it meets basic needs but lacks depth for robust agent use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter ('network') with its type, enum values, and default. The description mentions 'network' as part of the retrieved configuration but doesn't add syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Chamber contract configuration'), specifying what information is retrieved (contract address, network, and supported tokens). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on configuration retrieval rather than transaction-related operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for retrieving configuration, or differentiate from potential sibling tools that might handle similar data. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions verifying existence for private transactions, but doesn't explain what 'verify' entails (e.g., returns a boolean, error handling, network calls), authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations and potential complexity (private transactions), this is a significant gap, though it at least hints at the context.
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 concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and context. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidance, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (verifying private transactions), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively. The schema covers inputs, but the overall context is insufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no specific meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'claiming_key' and 'recipient'). Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify if a transaction exists with specific assets.' It specifies the verb (verify) and resource (transaction with assets), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'fully private transactions where assets are not publicly visible,' which suggests a unique use case. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'obtener_assets_transaccion' might be related), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for 'fully private transactions where assets are not publicly visible,' providing some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'obtener_assets_transaccion' or other siblings), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but limited to an implied scenario.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it warns that assets may be shown even if already spent, which is crucial for understanding the tool's limitations. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a critical warning in a second sentence, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a fetch operation with a warning), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps: it explains the purpose and usage well but lacks details on return values or error handling, making it minimally viable for the context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'transaction_key' and 'recipient_address' relate to fetching assets, but it doesn't need to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'fetch' and resource 'assets from a transaction', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'verificar_existencia_transaccion' beyond mentioning it as an alternative for verification, so it's not fully sibling-aware.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it includes a WARNING about showing assets even if spent and directly names 'verificar_existencia_transaccion' for accurate verification, offering clear context and exclusions.
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:

[![Mcp-mistcash MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joadataarg/Mcp-mistcash/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joadataarg/Mcp-mistcash)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Mcp-mistcash MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joadataarg/Mcp-mistcash/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joadataarg/Mcp-mistcash)

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/joadataarg/Mcp-mistcash'

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