XMTP MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: checking message capability, connecting to the network, retrieving messages, listing conversations, sending messages, and streaming messages. The descriptions make it easy for an agent to select the right tool for each specific action in the XMTP messaging workflow.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as check_can_message, connect_xmtp, get_messages, list_conversations, send_message, and stream_messages. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate for an agent.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for handling XMTP messaging operations. Each tool serves a specific and necessary function in the domain, from setup (connect_xmtp) to core messaging actions (send_message, get_messages) and monitoring (stream_messages), without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers essential messaging workflows comprehensively, including connection, sending, receiving, listing conversations, and streaming. A minor gap exists in lacking explicit tools for conversation management (e.g., deleting or archiving conversations), but agents can still perform core operations effectively without major dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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. It states the tool checks message reception capability but doesn't describe what the check entails (e.g., network calls, permissions, rate limits), the response format, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, 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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the check returns (e.g., boolean, status details), potential error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'send_message'. Given the complexity of verifying message reception, more context is needed for effective use.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter clearly documented as a wallet address. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond this, such as address format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 ('Check') and resource ('an address can receive XMTP messages'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect_xmtp' or 'get_messages', which might have overlapping contexts but different functions.
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 whether it should be used before 'send_message' to verify address capability or as a standalone check. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts, leaving usage unclear.
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 connects to the XMTP network, implying a setup/initialization operation, but lacks details on authentication needs (e.g., permissions required), side effects (e.g., whether it establishes a persistent session), rate limits, error handling, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits for a connection 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 waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple connection tool and front-loaded with the core action. 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 tool's complexity (a connection operation with authentication), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., a connection object, status), error cases, dependencies on sibling tools, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely enables other messaging functions, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 both parameters ('privateKey' and 'environment') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the wallet key format or environment implications. Baseline score is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add extra context.
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 ('Connect to XMTP network') and the resource ('XMTP network'), with the method ('with wallet key') specified. It distinguishes this as a connection/initialization tool versus messaging or querying siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for 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, prerequisites, or context. It doesn't mention if this is required before using sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'get_messages', nor does it specify scenarios like initial setup or reconnection. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and basic function, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.
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 states the action ('Get messages') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how messages are ordered (e.g., chronological), if there's pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or what happens if the address has no conversation. For a tool with no annotations, 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get messages') and includes essential context ('from a conversation with an address'). Every part 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety (read-only vs. mutation), error handling, or return format. For a read operation in a messaging context, more context on ordering, permissions, or response structure would improve completeness.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('address' and 'limit'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'address' but not elaborating on its format or context. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'limit' affects retrieval). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('messages'), specifying the source ('from a conversation with an address'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_message' (write vs. read) and 'list_conversations' (messages vs. conversations), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'stream_messages' (batch vs. stream). The purpose is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.
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., whether the conversation must exist or be initialized), nor does it compare to siblings like 'stream_messages' for real-time updates or 'list_conversations' for overviews. Usage is implied by the name 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends a message but doesn't cover critical traits like whether it's a write operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs an action.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a tool that performs a write action (sending a message) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, response format, error conditions, and integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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 input schema already documents both parameters ('recipient' and 'message') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 a message') and target ('to an address via XMTP'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'stream_messages', 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 to connect via 'connect_xmtp' first), appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Start streaming' implies a long-running or real-time operation, it doesn't describe what 'streaming' entails (e.g., continuous data flow, event-driven updates), how to handle the stream, termination conditions, or potential side effects like resource consumption or network usage.
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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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?
For a streaming tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'streaming' returns (e.g., real-time message objects, event streams), how to interact with the stream, or important behavioral aspects like error handling or cleanup requirements, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 single parameter 'callback' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unremarkable 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 ('Start streaming') and target resource ('new messages from all conversations'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages' (which presumably retrieves existing messages rather than streaming new ones), 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 like 'get_messages' or 'send_message'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether 'connect_xmtp' must be called first) or appropriate contexts for streaming versus other message operations.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this lists 'active' conversations, implying a filter, but doesn't explain what 'active' means, whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active' entails, the return format, or how this tool relates to siblings like 'get_messages'. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline high score for this dimension.
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 ('List') and resource ('active XMTP conversations'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'stream_messages', which also deal with conversations/messages, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
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 like 'get_messages' or 'stream_messages'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether 'connect_xmtp' must be called first) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![xmtp-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kwaude/xmtp-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kwaude/xmtp-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/kwaude/xmtp-mcp'

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