Skip to main content
Glama
satoshkin-dev

Satoshkin AML/KYT MCP Server

Official
by satoshkin-dev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap with other tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (check_wallet_aml) with snake_case, which is consistent with common conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only one tool, the server feels under-scoped for an AML/KYT domain that typically requires multiple operations (e.g., batch checks, reporting, history). A single tool is too narrow for the stated purpose.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool covers a single check operation with detailed risk data, but lacks any additional capabilities like listing, updating, or managing alerts. The domain of AML/KYT implies a richer tool surface, so this is incomplete.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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?

    The description discloses mock mode behavior and data source (BitOK/Satoshkin), which is good. However, it contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=false by stating 'Check' (implying read-only), creating inconsistency. The contradiction lowers trust in behavioral clarity.

    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 efficient sentences: first sentence states the core function and outputs, second sentence adds critical mock mode note. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It covers the main purpose and mock mode, but lacks detail on output structure and risk interpretation. The annotation contradiction also weakens completeness.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The schema already has 50% coverage (chain described, address only minLength), and the description provides no further explanation of how to use the parameters or their constraints. Low schema coverage demands compensation, which is missing.

    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's purpose: 'Check a crypto wallet address for AML/KYT risk.' It specifies the outputs (risk score, risk level, tags, activity data) and data source, making the purpose unambiguous. No siblings exist, so differentiation is not needed.

    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 when an AML check on a wallet is needed and mentions the mock mode condition without SATOSHKIN_API_KEY. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, which is acceptable given no sibling tools.

    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

satoshkin-aml-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

satoshkin-aml-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/satoshkin-dev/satoshkin-aml-mcp'

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