honeypot-detector-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_honeypotA | Check if a token address is a honeypot using honeypot.is API |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| analyze_honeypot | Prompt to analyze a token address for honeypot status Args: address: Token address to analyze |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool has a single, clearly defined purpose: checking if a token address is a honeypot.
The single tool name 'check_honeypot' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. Since there is only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations to assess.
A single tool is too few for a server with 'detector' in its name, suggesting a broader scope. While the tool is functional, the server lacks supporting tools like listing recent honeypots, checking multiple addresses, or getting detailed statistics, making it feel thin and incomplete.
The server's purpose appears to be honeypot detection, but with only a check tool, there are significant gaps. Missing operations include batch checks, historical analysis, risk scoring, or integration with other security tools, which limits agent workflows and creates dead ends for complex tasks.