Skip to main content
Glama
kukapay

bitcoin-utxo-mcp

by kukapay
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes with no overlap. get_block_stats focuses on block-level transaction statistics, while get_utxo retrieves unspent transaction outputs for specific addresses. An agent can easily differentiate between these two operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern with get_ prefix and snake_case formatting. The naming convention is predictable and readable throughout the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels significantly under-scoped for Bitcoin UTXO operations. A Bitcoin UTXO-focused server would typically need more tools for comprehensive coverage, such as transaction broadcasting, fee estimation, or address validation.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for Bitcoin UTXO operations. While it provides read operations for blocks and addresses, it lacks essential capabilities like transaction creation, signing, broadcasting, fee estimation, or multi-address UTXO aggregation. This creates significant gaps that will cause agent failures in typical Bitcoin workflows.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 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 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

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what information is returned, it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., invalid block height), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Returns section could be slightly more concise by listing items without the 'A string containing' preamble.

    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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, specific purpose) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides adequate context. It explains the parameter meaning and outlines return content, though additional behavioral context would improve completeness for a tool with no annotations.

    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 provides clear semantic meaning for the single parameter ('The height of the block'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. While it doesn't elaborate on constraints (e.g., valid range, format), it successfully explains what the parameter represents beyond the schema's basic type declaration.

    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 ('Get transaction statistics') and resource ('for a specific Bitcoin block'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_utxo which likely deals with unspent transaction outputs rather than block-level statistics. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

    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 when block-level transaction statistics are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There's no mention of the sibling tool get_utxo or when one would be preferred over the other, leaving usage context incomplete.

    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 describes the return format comprehensively but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it).

    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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information 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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, yet it provides a comprehensive overview of what the tool returns. Combined with the detailed parameter information, this creates a complete picture for a single-parameter query tool.

    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?

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics: it specifies the parameter name ('address'), type ('str'), and acceptable formats ('base58 or bech32 format'), which goes well beyond the bare 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?

    The description clearly states the specific action ('Get UTXO') and resource ('for a Bitcoin address'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_block_stats' which presumably deals with block-level statistics rather than address-specific UTXO data.

    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 implies usage context by specifying it's for Bitcoin addresses, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_block_stats' or other potential UTXO-related tools. However, the clear resource focus provides reasonable guidance.

    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

bitcoin-utxo-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bitcoin-utxo-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/kukapay/bitcoin-utxo-mcp'

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