Skip to main content
Glama
kukapay

bsc-multisend-mcp

by kukapay
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

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 clearly distinct purposes: one handles native BNB transfers and the other handles ERC20 token transfers. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as each targets a specific asset type with no functional duplication.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'distribute' as the verb and descriptive nouns ('Native', 'Token'). The naming is perfectly uniform and predictable across the set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a multisend server, lacking operations like checking balances, viewing transaction history, or handling batch configurations. While the core functionality is present, the scope is minimal and may limit agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers the basic distribution actions for two asset types but has significant gaps: no tools for querying contract status, validating addresses, estimating gas, or managing batches. This incomplete surface could lead to agent failures in complex scenarios.

  • Average 3.1/5 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using a specific contract ('C98MultiSend contract') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like transaction costs, gas requirements, success/failure handling, security implications, or rate limits. For a financial transaction 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, 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.

    Completeness2/5

    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 incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, network conditions, or operational constraints. For a tool that sends cryptocurrency, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.

    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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is appropriate. Baseline 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

    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 BNB'), target resource ('multiple addresses'), and context ('on BSC using the C98MultiSend contract'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'distributeToken' by specifying BNB instead of tokens, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The purpose is specific and actionable.

    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 like 'distributeToken'. The description implies usage for BNB distribution on BSC, but lacks explicit when/when-not criteria, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools. It's a basic functional statement without usage context.

    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 mentions the action ('Send ERC20 tokens') and contract ('C98MultiSend'), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, transaction costs, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, leaving 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.

    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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, 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.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of token distribution on a blockchain, the lack of annotations, no output schema, and the description's minimal detail, this is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or practical usage nuances, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation in a real-world context.

    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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are defined. The description implies parameters related to token distribution (e.g., addresses, amounts) but doesn't specify them, which is acceptable since the schema indicates no parameters are needed. However, this could be confusing if parameters are actually required in practice, warranting a score just below perfect.

    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 ERC20 tokens') and target ('to multiple addresses on BSC using the C98MultiSend contract'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'distributeNative', which likely distributes native BNB instead of ERC20 tokens, leaving some room for improvement in 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, such as its sibling 'distributeNative'. It lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites, timing, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, offering only a basic functional statement without contextual usage advice.

    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

bsc-multisend-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bsc-multisend-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/bsc-multisend-mcp'

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