StealthPay MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct and clear purpose, covering separate actions like generating addresses, sending payments, managing ENS names, resolving profiles, creating payment links, and claiming funds. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern with hyphens (e.g., generate-stealth-address, send-stealth-payment). The naming is predictable and uniform throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its privacy-focused payment domain. Each tool is essential and covers key operations without unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers most of the stealth payment workflow, but a critical tool for scanning announcements (as referenced in claim-stealth-payment) is missing, creating a dependency on external inputs. Additionally, no tools for balance checks or transaction history are provided.
Average 4.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
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
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description uses 'generate' which implies a write/mutation, but annotations have readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations are disclosed, and the contradiction undermines trust.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence adds value about privacy and control. No wasted words.
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 simple input and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core functionality and privacy aspect. It could mention prerequisites like ENS resolution, but it's largely complete for a straightforward tool.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'name' parameter. The description merely restates 'using their ENS name', adding no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'generate' and the resource 'stealth address' for a recipient via ENS name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'claim-stealth-payment' and 'send-stealth-payment' by focusing on generation.
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 explains the privacy benefit (unlinkable) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send-stealth-payment' or 'claim-stealth-payment'. Usage context is implied but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.
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, description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (sets reverse record) and outcome (address resolves to name). However, lacks details on mutation, permissions, reversibility, or costs.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key verb and resource, no wasted words. Highly concise and structured.
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 no output schema, the description covers purpose and outcome adequately. Missing prerequisites (must own the ENS name) and error conditions, but for a simple setter it is fairly complete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context ('reverse record') but does not significantly enhance beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: setting primary ENS name for wallet, with the effect of address resolution. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'register-ens-name' by focusing on reverse record, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
Implied usage when you want your address to resolve to a given ENS name, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites like owning the name.
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?
The description discloses key derivation, environment key usage, and that private keys never pass through AI. This adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences: first states action, second explains security and key inputs. No redundancy; all information is essential and well-structured.
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 description covers the core action and security but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., prior scan-announcements) or output details. Output schema exists, so return values are likely documented elsewhere.
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 100%, but the description adds context that only ephemeralPublicKey and to are needed (others optional/default). This helps the agent prioritize inputs beyond schema descriptions.
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 derives the stealth private key and withdraws funds in one step, specifying required inputs (ephemeral public key from scan-announcements, destination address). It distinguishes from siblings like generate-stealth-address and send-stealth-payment by focusing on claiming.
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 after scanning announcements but lacks explicit when/why advice or exclusion criteria. It does not compare to sibling tools or state prerequisites clearly.
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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the link resolving to a stealth address at payment time, explaining the privacy mechanism. No contradictions with annotations.
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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and key feature. No wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded.
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 annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the output's privacy characteristic. The output schema (not shown) likely covers return format, so no missing context.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Generate a shareable payment link') and resource ('ENS name'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate-stealth-address' and 'send-stealth-payment' by specifying the output is a shareable link with privacy features.
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 for creating a privacy-preserving payment link, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'generate-stealth-address' or 'send-stealth-payment'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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?
Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: checks availability, computes cost, describes the three-step flow, and notes the 65-second delay. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, not idempotent, not destructive).
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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 output schema exists, description adequately covers flow, timing, environment variable, and parameter hints. No gaps for a registration tool.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. Description adds minor clarification (e.g., 'without .eth suffix') but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what schema already provides.
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 'Register a new .eth ENS name' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set-primary-name' by describing the full commit-wait-register flow for initial registration.
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 provides timing guidance (~65 seconds waiting period) and mentions environment variable for private key. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives but gives sufficient context for agent to decide.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions. A score of 4 is appropriate as the description contributes useful behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action (resolve and fetch). Perfectly concise for the information density.
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 covered. The description explains the input and what the tool does. Minor omission: no mention of error behavior if ENS name does not exist. But overall complete for a simple read operation with good 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameter description already provides 'ENS name (e.g. vitalik.eth)'. The tool description adds context about resolving the name and fetching a payment profile, giving operational meaning. This elevates the baseline from 3 to 4.
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 verb 'resolve' and resource 'ENS name' and specifies the output fields: address, avatar, preferred chain/token, stealth meta-address. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate-stealth-address or register-ens-name.
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: when you have an ENS name and need payment profile details. It doesn't explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives, but the context of siblings makes it clear. A score of 4 reflects clear context without exclusions.
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?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true. Description adds that it generates a one-time address, sends funds, and announces via ERC-5564, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with key action. Slightly verbose with 'Supports...' phrase but overall efficient and focused.
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 output schema presence, description covers sending flow. Lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., recipient must have payment profile) but adequate for typical use.
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?
All 5 parameters are described in schema (100% coverage). Description enhances memo, chain, and token with additional detail (e.g., encoding, supported chains, token resolution).
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 sending a private payment to an ENS name via stealth address, lists supported tokens and ERC-5564. Distinguishes from siblings like generate-stealth-address and claim-stealth-payment.
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?
Implies use for sending private payments, but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like generate-stealth-address or claim-stealth-payment. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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