A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceAn MCP server that powers AI agents with indexed blockchain data from The Graph.
3
MIT
gravity-agent-mcp
by menmengleap
Related Servers
Alternatives to gravity-agent-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
Armor Crypto MCPofficial
AlicenseCqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server providing unified access to blockchain operations, bridging, swapping, and crypto trading strategies for AI agents.37179GPL 3.0- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for AI agent trust verification, enabling agents to verify identities, check trust scores, and build reputation across multiple blockchain and web platforms.125 npm1MIT
- -licenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA sophisticated MCP server providing advanced memory capabilities with RAG, hallucination detection, and enterprise-grade AI infrastructure for intelligent agent ecosystems.-
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server enabling AI agents to participate in the Wisdom Network. Provides tools for knowledge management, trust relationships, and content transformation.41-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA local-first MCP server that enables AI agents to query the Sui blockchain using gRPC, GraphQL, and Archival Service, with auto-routing and LLM-friendly responses.2930 npm5Apache 2.0
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools are completely unrelated: one provides Cambodian cultural context, the other queries blockchain wallets. There is no overlap in purpose or functionality, so an agent can easily distinguish them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both tools use descriptive names with underscores, but one starts with 'get_' and the other with 'web3_', introducing a slight inconsistency in naming style. However, both are clear and predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With only 2 tools covering disparate domains (culture and blockchain), the server feels underdeveloped. Either the server should focus on one domain with more tools, or additional related tools should be added to justify the mix.
Completeness3/5
Each individual tool appears adequate for its narrow purpose, but the server lacks a coherent domain, making it impossible to assess full lifecycle coverage. There are no obvious gaps within each tool, but the set as a whole is not comprehensive.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessSyncing