Provides tools for interacting with the Ashfields NFT smart contracts on Ethereum, including checking mint status and wallet balances/allowances, approving $ASH spending, minting NFTs by burning 100,000 $ASH per token, and triggering royalty distribution.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ashfields-mcp-server Check my wallet and mint 1 Ashfield if I have enough ASH."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
The first MCP server that burns an ERC-20 token to mint an NFT. Approve $ASH, call mint() — 100,000 tokens permanently destroyed, fully on-chain animated SVG appears on Ethereum. No ETH payment. No browser. Two contract calls from any agent.
Ashfields — 10,000 fully on-chain animated SVG NFTs. Minting burns 100,000 $ASH permanently. Earn $ASH by burning dead NFTs on deadjpg.lol.
git clone https://github.com/smoke711711/ashfields-mcp-server
cd ashfields-mcp-server
npm installOr via npx (no clone needed):
npx ashfields-mcp-serverRelated MCP server: Vaultfire MCP Server
Node.js 18+
A wallet with:
Enough $ASH to mint (100,000 $ASH per token)
A small amount of ETH for gas (~0.001 ETH per mint)
export WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY=0xYOUR_PRIVATE_KEY
# Optional — defaults to a public Ethereum node
export ETH_RPC_URL=https://eth-mainnet.g.alchemy.com/v2/YOUR_KEYEdit claude_desktop_config.json:
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"ashfields": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/ashfields-mcp-server/index.js"],
"env": {
"WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY": "0xYOUR_PRIVATE_KEY",
"ETH_RPC_URL": "https://ethereum.publicnode.com"
}
}
}
}Restart Claude Desktop — the tools will appear automatically.
get_mint_infoReturns current mint status: price per token, total minted, remaining supply, whether minting is active, and contract addresses.
Arg | Type | Required |
— | — | — |
Returns: { mintActive, totalMinted, remainingSupply, pricePerToken, priceFormatted, maxPerTransaction, contracts }
check_walletReturns the configured wallet address, $ASH balance, ETH balance, current $ASH allowance for the Ashfields contract, and how many tokens it can mint right now.
Arg | Type | Required |
— | — | — |
Returns: { walletAddress, ashBalance, ashAllowance, ethBalance, canMintThisTx, needsApproval }
approve_ashApproves the Ashfields contract to spend $ASH from the wallet. Waits for on-chain confirmation. Only needed if allowance is insufficient — mint_ashfield handles this automatically.
Arg | Type | Required | Description |
| number | yes | Tokens to approve for (1–5). Approves quantity × 100,000 ASH. |
Returns: { status, approved, forTokens, wallet, txHash, etherscan }
mint_ashfieldFull mint flow: checks allowance, auto-approves if needed, mints, waits for confirmation. Returns minted token IDs and OpenSea link. Burns 100,000 $ASH per token permanently (sent to 0xdead).
Arg | Type | Required | Description |
| number | yes | Tokens to mint (1–5 per transaction). |
Returns: { status, minted, ashBurned, tokenIds, wallet, approvalTx, mintTx, etherscan, opensea }
Example response:
{
"status": "success",
"minted": 2,
"ashBurned": "200,000 ASH",
"tokenIds": ["8377", "220"],
"approvalTx": "0xfc33...",
"mintTx": "0xe2e0...",
"etherscan": "https://etherscan.io/tx/0xe2e0...",
"opensea": "https://opensea.io/collection/ashfields-lol"
}trigger_distributeCalls distribute() on the RoyaltyDistributor contract. Permissionless — any wallet can trigger this at any time. Splits accumulated royalty ETH: 1% creator · 1% $ASH team · 8% Uniswap buyback → burned to 0xdead. Requires ≥ 0.005 ETH in the distributor.
Arg | Type | Required |
— | — | — |
Returns: { status, txHash, etherscan, note }
"Check my wallet balance, verify I have enough $ASH to mint 2 Ashfields, then mint them and return the token IDs and OpenSea links."
Contract | Address |
Ashfields NFT (ASHF) |
|
$ASH Token |
|
RoyaltyDistributor |
|
Private key is read from environment variables only — never passed as a tool argument
Server communicates via stdio — no network port is opened
Only the configured wallet can sign transactions
trigger_distribute() is permissionless by contract design — safe for any wallet to call
curl https://ashfields-mint.vercel.app/api/mint-infoMIT © 2025 smoke711711
Approves the Ashfields contract to spend $ASH tokens from the configured wallet. Submits the approval transaction and waits for on-chain confirmation. Required before minting if the current allowance is insufficient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quantity | Yes | Number of tokens to approve spend for (1–5). Approves quantity × 100,000 ASH. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool submits a transaction and waits for on-chain confirmation, which reveals side-effecting and blocking behavior. It does not mention gas costs, failure modes, or reversibility, but the core transactional nature is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, with the key action and resource in the first sentence and usage context plus block behavior in the second. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers what the tool does, when it is needed, and that it waits for confirmation. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of confirmation partially addresses the outcome. It could note what is returned (e.g., transaction hash) but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description already fully explains the quantity parameter: 'Number of tokens to approve spend for (1–5). Approves quantity × 100,000 ASH.' Since the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema and coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence states a specific verb ('approves') and resource ('the Ashfields contract to spend $ASH tokens from the configured wallet'). It also contextualizes the action as a prerequisite for minting, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mint_ashfield.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Required before minting if the current allowance is insufficient.' This gives a clear condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or the when-not case (e.g., 'if allowance is sufficient, skip approval'), so it stops short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the configured wallet address, its $ASH token balance, its current $ASH allowance for the Ashfields contract, and its ETH balance for gas. Also reports the maximum number of tokens it can mint right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a non-mutative query by using 'Returns' and 'reports' and lists exactly what data is exposed. It doesn't explicitly say 'does not modify state,' but the wording and the 'check' name make the read-only behavior clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, with the primary return values stated first and the additional minting capacity note second. Every word adds meaning; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return payload (address, balances, allowance, mintable count). An agent has everything it needs to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the description correctly omits it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Returns the configured wallet address' and then enumerates four specific outputs: $ASH balance, $ASH allowance for Ashfields, ETH balance, and max mintable tokens. This gives a precise verb and resource and clearly distinguishes it from the mutation-oriented siblings (mint_ashfield, approve_ash, trigger_distribute).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys a clear usage context: call this whenever you need the configured wallet's balances or allowance/minting capacity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only nature and specific outputs make the appropriate usage obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns current Ashfields mint status: price per token, total minted so far, remaining supply, whether minting is currently active, and contract addresses. Call this first to confirm minting is open before attempting a mint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently frames the tool as a read-only status query by saying it 'returns' current state. It adds useful behavioral context by advising the agent to verify minting is active before attempting a mint, and no annotations are present to contradict or supplement this. It does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, but the name and language make that clear enough for this simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return fields; the second adds a clear, actionable usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a simple, zero-parameter, read-only status tool. It enumerates the expected return contents (price, minted total, remaining supply, active flag, contract addresses) and tells the agent what to do with the result. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential information an agent needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, and it appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns current Ashfields mint status' and enumerates the exact data fields returned. This clearly distinguishes get_mint_info from siblings like mint_ashfield and trigger_distribute, which perform actions rather than report status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to confirm minting is open before attempting a mint.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not discuss when not to use it or directly compare it with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Mints one or more Ashfields NFTs. Automatically approves $ASH if the current allowance is insufficient, then submits the mint transaction and waits for confirmation. Returns the minted token IDs and OpenSea links. Burns 100,000 $ASH per token permanently (sent to 0xdead).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quantity | Yes | Number of tokens to mint. Must be between 1 and 5 per transaction. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It disposes the auto-approve, transaction submission, confirmation handling, permanent burn to 0xdead, and returned OpenSea links. No contradictions with annotations exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the execution sequence and return value in logical order. Every piece of information earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the pre-approve behavior, the transaction flow, the destruction of tokens, and the return format. An agent can correctly invoke it and interpret its results without needing more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already document the quantity parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by stating the cost consequence — burning 100,000 $ASH per token — which helps an agent reason about quantity choices. This is incremental value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Mints one or more Ashfields NFTs.' It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_mint_info (read-only info) and approve_ash (approval only) by showing the full mint flow. Nothing about the purpose is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states that approval is handled automatically when allowance is insufficient, which effectively tells the agent that a separate approve_ash call is unnecessary before minting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full marks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Calls distribute() on the RoyaltyDistributor contract. Permissionless — any wallet can trigger this at any time. Splits accumulated royalty ETH: 1% to creator, 1% to $ASH team, 8% buys $ASH on Uniswap and burns it to 0xdead. Requires at least 0.005 ETH in the distributor to execute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the permissionless nature, the exact distribution mechanics (1% to creator, 1% to team, 8% buy-and-burn to 0xdead), and the minimum ETH threshold. It does not mention failure/revert behavior or gas requirements, but the primary side effects and constraints are well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, each with a distinct job: identify the contract call, state permissionlessness, explain the fund distribution, and specify the execution threshold. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema transaction trigger, the description covers the target contract, the permission model, the exact economic effects, and the precondition. An agent has everything necessary to decide whether and how to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. The baseline score of 4 for a parameterless tool applies, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter-related claims.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a precise verb-resource pair, 'Calls distribute() on the RoyaltyDistributor contract,' and then details the exact purpose via the ETH split. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_mint_info and approve_ash, which operate in different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states that the tool is permissionless and can be triggered by any wallet at any time, which gives clear context for when to use it. It also provides a concrete precondition ('Requires at least 0.005 ETH'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are functionally unrelated, so this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0approve_ashcheck_walletget_mint_infomint_ashfieldtrigger_distributeScored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct action: reading mint status, checking wallet state, approving spending, minting, and triggering distribution. The only slight overlap is approve_ash versus mint_ashfield's auto-approve, but both are clearly differentiated by purpose.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern and use snake_case consistently. Minor inconsistency exists between get_mint_info and check_wallet, both of which are informational but use different verbs; overall the pattern is predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused NFT minting and royalty distribution server. Each tool maps to an essential step in the workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The core minting flow is fully covered: check status, inspect wallet, approve, mint, and distribute royalties. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated way to query the RoyaltyDistributor's balance or distribution status, which would require external verification.
Mine, mint and verify 8004 NONCE proof-of-work art on Ethereum L1.
On-chain ERC-8004 agent registry. Search, register, and check reputation across 16 chains.
Manage your blockchain infrastructure across 80+ chains with your agents.
Issue Agent Passports and verify agent authority before value moves. Signed verification records.
