Skip to main content
Glama
nosis-bunker

nosis-bunker

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to nosis-bunker

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables users and AI agents to verify whether a crypto recipient address is an address-poisoning lookalike or has an invalid EIP-55 checksum before sending funds, and provides access to an on-chain history scan for suspicious transfers.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      This server analyzes EVM wallet addresses and ENS names to calculate a Privacy Score based on on-chain data. It provides detailed findings, traces linked wallets, and generates actionable fix plans to enhance wallet privacy.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Trust-aware Nostr MCP server. 236 tools for identity, social, DMs, trust scoring, AI-to-AI dispatch, Lightning payments, privacy proofs, and encrypted vaults. NIP-46 bunker auth; keys never leave the signing device.
      220 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables checking whether a crypto link is a phishing lookalike of a wallet, exchange or dapp by comparing it against official domains and flagging lookalike characters, typosquats, punycode and bait words, fully offline. An optional paid full check adds domain registration age, DNS, redirect tracing and a page scan for seed-phrase prompts and drainer code.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Non-custodial agent wallet with a transaction preflight that decodes an unsigned EVM tx and flags drain patterns (unlimited/large approval, approve-all, token & NFT transferFrom, proxy upgrade, on-chain permit, approvals hidden in multicall) before signing.
      9
      110 PyPI
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    list_networks and scan_addresses serve clearly separate purposes: one enumerates supported networks and exposure-model semantics, the other classifies specific addresses. There is no plausible confusion between discovery/metadata and address scanning.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_networks, scan_addresses). The convention is uniform and readable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Two tools is slightly thin by general MCP standards, but it fits this narrow offline utility: one tool for network/exposure-model discovery and one for the core scanning operation. Nothing extraneous is present.

    Completeness4/5

    The pair covers the core workflow: listing networks with exposure-model meaning and scanning addresses with per-address results and an ordered plan. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone single-address lookup or per-network detail tool, but users can accomplish the main task.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessOutdated data