crypto-inspector-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
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| inspect_tokenB | Perform a comprehensive security and liquidity check on a cryptocurrency token contract. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
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 confusing it with another. The single inspect_token tool has a clearly defined purpose, so an agent cannot misselect it.
The only tool name follows a clear verb_noun convention (inspect_token) and accurately reflects its function. There is no set of tools to establish a broader naming pattern, but the name is well-formed and self-explanatory.
The server exposes only one tool for what is described as a comprehensive security and liquidity check. This feels too thin for the as a token inspection MCP, which would typically benefit from separately callable tools for specific aspects such as liquidity details, holder analysis, or price data.
The tool surface is extremely limited, offering only a single monolithic action. While the description claims a comprehensive check, there are no additional tools for focused queries, comparing tokens, or retrieving specific aspects of the analysis, leaving obvious gaps in an inspection workflow.