Kaspa MCP

by kasanova-io

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct and clearly defined purpose with no overlap. For example, generate_mnemonic creates a new wallet, get_balance checks funds, send_kaspa transfers tokens, and health_check monitors server status. The descriptions make it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for any task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as generate_mnemonic, get_balance, and send_kaspa. This uniformity makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for wallet and transaction management in the Kaspa domain. Each tool serves a specific function, from wallet creation to transaction handling, without being overly sparse or bloated, making it efficient for typical use cases.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core wallet operations like creation, balance checking, and sending tokens, along with network and health checks. A minor gap is the lack of tools for advanced features such as transaction history or multi-signature support, but agents can perform essential workflows without significant hindrance.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 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
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are critical for a read operation in a financial 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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is zero wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves transaction details. It doesn't explain what 'status and details' include, potential return values, or error scenarios, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding in a financial system 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'txId' documented as 'Transaction ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction status and details'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balance' or 'send_kaspa' beyond the obvious resource difference, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a transaction ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_balance' for account info or 'send_kaspa' for transaction creation, leaving usage context implied at best.
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 the action ('Send') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is irreversible, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a financial transaction tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse 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 this is a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after sending (e.g., returns transaction ID?), error handling, security implications, or how it integrates with sibling tools. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain KAS token units, address format validation, or payload use cases). This meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Send') and resource ('KAS tokens to a recipient address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' or 'get_balance' beyond the obvious transactional nature, which prevents 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a balance first), error conditions, or how it relates to siblings like 'get_fee_estimate' for fee planning. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires network connectivity, potential rate limits, or what format the fee estimates return. The description is too basic for a network query tool.
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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 network-related tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'fee estimates' include (e.g., transaction fees, network fees), how they're calculated, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, earning a high baseline score. A perfect 5 would require explicitly stating 'no parameters required' or similar, which isn't present.
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 ('Get') and resource ('current fee estimates from the Kaspa network'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balance' or 'get_transaction' beyond the specific resource type, which prevents 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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used before sending transactions (vs. 'send_kaspa') or how it relates to other query tools like 'get_balance'. There's only implied usage based on the name.
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 mentions the default behavior (using the user's address if none specified), which is useful context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., balance in KAS).
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get balance for a Kaspa address') and adds the default behavior. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.
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's low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to disclose key behavioral aspects like read/write nature or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's understanding of how to interpret results.
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%, with the parameter 'address' fully documented in the schema as optional and defaulting to the user's address. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, merely restating the default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Get' and resource 'balance for a Kaspa address', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_my_address' by focusing on balance retrieval rather than address generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_transaction' which might also involve address-related queries.
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 by stating 'defaults to your wallet address', suggesting this tool is for checking balances of either specified addresses or the user's own. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_my_address' for address retrieval or 'send_kaspa' for transactions, leaving some ambiguity.
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 states the tool retrieves an address but does not mention whether this requires authentication, involves network calls, has rate limits, or returns specific formats. For a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to understand at a glance.
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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for understanding its basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or network behavior, which are important for a tool interacting with a blockchain or private key, making it only minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information and focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter elaboration.
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 ('Kaspa address derived from the configured private key'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_balance' or 'get_transaction', which also retrieve information but for different resources, preventing 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, such as 'get_balance' for balance information or 'send_kaspa' for transactions. It implies usage for retrieving an address but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
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 states what is checked (wallet config, address derivation, API connectivity) but doesn't describe how the check is performed, what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure status, error messages), or any side effects (e.g., whether it logs data or affects server state). For a diagnostic 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 core purpose ('Check server health') and lists the three key aspects without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what is checked, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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's complexity (simple diagnostic with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. For a health check tool, more information on what constitutes 'health' (e.g., thresholds, response format) would improve completeness, but it meets the baseline for a basic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly state the lack of parameters, which could be a minor gap.
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 as checking server health across three specific aspects: wallet config, address derivation, and API connectivity. It uses the verb 'check' with the resource 'server health' and provides concrete sub-components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (like get_balance or get_fee_estimate which might also involve connectivity checks), so it doesn't reach the highest 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when server health is suspect), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_balance (which might also test connectivity). The context is implied (checking health) but lacks explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (generating mnemonic and deriving address) but lacks details about security implications (e.g., whether the mnemonic is displayed/stored), rate limits, or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations since none exist, but could provide more 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and usage. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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's complexity (cryptographic wallet generation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain return values, security considerations, or potential side effects. For a wallet creation tool, more context about output format and safety would be beneficial.
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 fully documents both parameters (wordCount and network). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Generate a new BIP39 mnemonic phrase') and the resource ('derive the corresponding Kaspa wallet address'), with explicit purpose ('create a new wallet'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_balance or send_kaspa by focusing on wallet creation rather than querying or transacting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to create a new wallet'), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that query existing data or send transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives for similar functions.
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:

[![kaspa-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kasanova-io/kaspa-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kasanova-io/kaspa-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kaspa-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kasanova-io/kaspa-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kasanova-io/kaspa-mcp)

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/kasanova-io/kaspa-mcp'

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