Base MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of on-chain data—contract verification, rug-pull risk, token approvals, recent transactions, wallet activity, and balance. There is no functional overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (check_* and get_*). The verbs are descriptive and the nouns clearly indicate the resource being acted upon, forming a predictable naming scheme.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is lean and focused on essential on-chain analysis functions for the Base ecosystem. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or unnecessary features, making the set well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key queries for contract safety and wallet activity, but lacks tools for fetching specific transaction details or token metadata. These are minor gaps that agents can work around, but the core use cases are addressed.
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the limit parameter's default and maximum, and the required address format, but lacks behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, error handling, or whether it is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get').
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 four lines total. The purpose is stated first, followed by parameter details in a clean format. No extra words, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It specifies the blockchain (Base) and provides necessary parameter info. However, it could mention the order of transactions or any constraints like base mainnet only, but for a simple retrieval tool it is largely complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining both parameters: address is a 0x-prefixed string, and limit is an integer with default 10 and max 50. This adds valuable context beyond the raw schema.
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?
Description explicitly states that the tool gets recent transactions for a given address on Base. The verb 'Get' and resource 'recent transactions' are clear, and it distinguishes from siblings which cover activities like checking contracts, approvals, and balance.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wallet_activity. The description simply states what it does without providing usage context or exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read action and the target, but does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or the fact that balance queries are typically safe.
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 two sentences and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description fully covers what it does, the parameter format, and the blockchain. Since an output schema exists, the return format does not need to be described.
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 description adds '0x-prefixed' to the address parameter, which is not in the schema (schema description coverage 0%). This provides useful formatting guidance beyond the schema's minimal 'Address' title.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'native ETH balance', specifying the blockchain 'Base'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_contract_verification' and 'get_recent_transactions'.
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 vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.
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?
Discloses key behavioral traits: it samples from the most recent 1,000 transactions, is a heuristic indicator, and not an official metric. With no annotations, the description carries full weight and provides sufficient detail about what the tool does and its limitations.
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?
Description is two short paragraphs plus an Args line. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value (methodology, caveat, parameter). No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers inputs, methodology, and caveats. It explains the scoring basis without needing to describe return values, leaving that to the schema. Sufficient for an agent to understand usage.
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 schema has 1 parameter 'address' with no description. The description adds 'The 0x-prefixed wallet address to check,' which provides format and purpose beyond the schema, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.
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?
Clearly states it computes a 0-100 on-chain activity score for a wallet on Base. The verb 'compute' and resource 'activity score' are specific. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance or check_rugpull_risk, which address different aspects.
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?
Explains the methodology (transaction count, active days, etc.) and that it's a heuristic, not an official metric. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, limiting guidance on selection.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns verification status, proxy information, and ownership renouncement, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or error 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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes an Args section for clarity. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are partially explained in the description (status, proxy, ownership). It covers the main functionality but lacks details on error handling or edge cases. Still, it is complete for a simple check 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'address' parameter requires a 0x-prefixed contract address. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition.
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 tool checks contract verification on Base, listing specific metadata (source verification, upgradeable proxy, ownership renounced). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on rugpull risk, approvals, transactions, wallet activity, and balances.
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 checking contract verification but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It is adequate but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description details the process (scanning events, verifying current state), warns about old events possibly being outdated, and flags unlimited approvals as high-risk. It also clarifies read-only nature. No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavioral traits.
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?
Description is concise with no wasted words: a short intro, a paragraph on behavior, a note on read-only, and clear Args section. Front-loaded purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema needed due to its existence), description covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and risk flags. No gaps identified.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for the only parameter: 'The 0x-prefixed wallet address to check.' This compensates for the lack of schema description.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks a wallet's active ERC-20 and NFT token approvals on Base, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_rugpull_risk or get_wallet_balance.
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?
Description explains the tool scans historical events and verifies current state, and explicitly states it is read-only and cannot revoke. While it doesn't give explicit when-to-use vs. siblings, the context implies its specific use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It details what the tool checks (verification, scam code patterns, ownership, upgradeability) and explicitly states it is heuristic and not a security audit. It also mentions the output is a 0-100 risk score, leaving no hidden behaviors.
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 concise yet comprehensive. It opens with a clear statement of purpose, then lists checks and caveats in a structured paragraph, followed by an explicit Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it checks, what it returns, and a critical caveat. The output schema handles return format details, so the description is appropriately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for parameters), so the description must add meaning. It clearly explains the 'address' parameter as 'The 0x-prefixed contract address to screen,' adding the required prefix format and usage context far beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 tool runs a heuristic rug-pull risk screen on a Base contract and returns a risk score. It lists specific checks (source verification, scam patterns, ownership, proxy/upgradeability), making the purpose unambiguous. It also effectively distinguishes from siblings like check_contract_verification and check_token_approvals.
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 usage context: it is a heuristic tool, not a security audit, and advises manual verification before financial decisions. While it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it, the caution and scope (Base contract) offer sufficient guidance. Sibling tools are different enough that confusion is unlikely.
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:

[![base-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/khlndaaa/base-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/khlndaaa/base-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![base-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/khlndaaa/base-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/khlndaaa/base-mcp-server)

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/khlndaaa/base-mcp-server'

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