Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
smoke711711

ashfields-mcp-server

by smoke711711
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Ashfields MCP Server

MIT License npm MCP

ERC-20 토큰을 소각하여 NFT를 민팅하는 최초의 MCP 서버입니다. $ASH를 승인하고 mint()를 호출하세요 — 100,000개의 토큰이 영구히 소각되며, 완전 온체인 애니메이션 SVG가 이더리움에 나타납니다. ETH 결제 없음. 브라우저 불필요. 어떤 에이전트든 두 번의 컨트랙트 호출만 하면 됩니다.

Ashfields — 10,000개의 완전 온체인 애니메이션 SVG NFT. 민팅 시 100,000 $ASH가 영구 소각됩니다. deadjpg.lol에서 죽은 NFT를 소각하여 $ASH를 획득하세요.

설치

git clone https://github.com/smoke711711/ashfields-mcp-server
cd ashfields-mcp-server
npm install

또는 npx 사용(클론 불필요):

npx ashfields-mcp-server

Related MCP server: Vibecoins MCP

요구 사항

  • Node.js 18+

  • 다음을 갖춘 지갑:

    • 민팅에 충분한 $ASH (토큰당 100,000 $ASH)

    • 가스용 소량의 ETH (민팅당 ~0.001 ETH)

구성

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_KEY

Claude Desktop에 추가

claude_desktop_config.json 편집:

  • 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"
      }
    }
  }
}

Claude Desktop을 다시 시작하면 도구가 자동으로 나타납니다.

사용 가능한 도구

get_mint_info

현재 민팅 상태를 반환합니다: 토큰당 가격, 총 민팅 수량, 남은 공급량, 민팅 활성화 여부, 컨트랙트 주소.

인자

유형

필수

—

—

—

반환값: { mintActive, totalMinted, remainingSupply, pricePerToken, priceFormatted, maxPerTransaction, contracts }

check_wallet

설정된 지갑 주소, $ASH 잔액, ETH 잔액, Ashfields 컨트랙트에 대한 현재 $ASH 허용량, 그리고 지금 민팅할 수 있는 토큰 수를 반환합니다.

인자

유형

필수

—

—

—

반환값: { walletAddress, ashBalance, ashAllowance, ethBalance, canMintThisTx, needsApproval }

approve_ash

Ashfields 컨트랙트가 지갑의 $ASH를 사용하도록 승인합니다. 온체인 확인을 기다립니다. 허용량이 부족한 경우에만 필요합니다 — mint_ashfield가 자동으로 처리합니다.

인자

유형

필수

설명

quantity

number

예

승인할 토큰 수(1–5). 수량 × 100,000 ASH를 승인합니다.

반환값: { status, approved, forTokens, wallet, txHash, etherscan }

mint_ashfield

전체 민팅 흐름: 허용량을 확인하고, 필요 시 자동 승인한 뒤, 민팅하고, 확인을 기다립니다. 민팅된 토큰 ID와 OpenSea 링크를 반환합니다. 토큰당 100,000 $ASH를 영구 소각합니다(0xdead로 전송).

인자

유형

필수

설명

quantity

number

예

민팅할 토큰 수(트랜잭션당 1–5).

반환값: { status, minted, ashBurned, tokenIds, wallet, approvalTx, mintTx, etherscan, opensea }

응답 예시:

{
  "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_distribute

RoyaltyDistributor 컨트랙트에서 distribute()를 호출합니다. 허가 없이 실행 가능 — 어떤 지갑이든 언제든 트리거할 수 있습니다. 누적된 로열티 ETH를 분배합니다: 1% 크리에이터 · 1% $ASH 팀 · 8% Uniswap 바이백 → 0xdead로 소각. 디스트리뷰터에 ≥ 0.005 ETH가 필요합니다.

인자

유형

필수

—

—

—

반환값: { status, txHash, etherscan, note }

에이전트 프롬프트 예시

"내 지갑 잔액을 확인하고, Ashfields 2개를 민팅할 충분한 $ASH가 있는지 검증한 다음, 민팅하여 토큰 ID와 OpenSea 링크를 반환해 줘."

컨트랙트 주소 (Ethereum Mainnet)

컨트랙트

주소

Ashfields NFT (ASHF)

0x068FB5Ac232462f642F34B2bAa81750Cc2F00DAA

$ASH Token

0x7e6aed913DEAA38A486514AD75Bdf8E48Fa74a17

RoyaltyDistributor

0xF3b4063958dB5814E31aA745FbbfD4c0006E52A6

보안

  • 개인 키는 환경 변수에서만 읽습니다 — 도구 인자로 전달되지 않습니다

  • 서버는 stdio로 통신합니다 — 네트워크 포트가 열리지 않습니다

  • 구성된 지갑만 트랜잭션에 서명할 수 있습니다

  • trigger_distribute()는 컨트랙트 설계상 허가 없이 실행 가능합니다 — 어떤 지갑이든 호출해도 안전합니다

기계 판독 가능 사양

curl https://ashfields-mint.vercel.app/api/mint-info

링크

라이선스

MIT © 2025 smoke711711

Available Tools

5 tools
approve_ashA

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.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quantityYesNumber of tokens to approve spend for (1–5). Approves quantity × 100,000 ASH.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

check_walletA

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.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

get_mint_infoA

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.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

mint_ashfieldA

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).

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quantityYesNumber of tokens to mint. Must be between 1 and 5 per transaction.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

trigger_distributeA

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.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 5 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedapprove_ash
    • First observedcheck_wallet
    • First observedget_mint_info
    • First observedmint_ashfield
    • First observedtrigger_distribute
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Dogeshit MCP

    dogeshitmeme
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to trigger on-chain minting of $SHIT tokens via EIP-7702 delegation and MCP, with the user retaining full custody and the contract ensuring tokens go to the caller's own wallet.
    4
    MIT

  • arc-agent-passport

    apexfaucet-hub
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to mint and manage ERC-8004 identities on Arc through free self-minting from their own wallet or paid x402 minting, including drafting registration files, confirming on-chain registration, editing owner-signed files, and checking status.
    MIT