Official Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Halal Crypto Index. Built with the official @modelcontextprotocol/sdk, this server enables AI assistants (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, ChatGPT, Perplexity) to perform real-time, forensic Islamic finance compliance checks across 820+ cryptocurrencies under AAOIFI (Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions) Standards.
Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"halal-crypto": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"halal-crypto-mcp"
]
}
}
}Config file locations:
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
In your Cursor or Windsurf MCP Settings (Settings -> Features -> MCP):
Name: halal-crypto
Type: command
Command: npx -y halal-crypto-mcp
Install directly using Smithery:
npx -y @smithery/cli install halal-crypto-mcp --client claudeFor cloud-based AI agents, a hosted HTTP JSON-RPC 2.0 / SSE endpoint is live at:
POST https://halalcryptoindex.com/mcp
Content-Type: application/jsonRelated MCP server: safeagent-token-safety
check_shariah_complianceEvaluates any cryptocurrency by ticker ($BTC, $SOL, $KAS, $AAVE, $USDE) or name for Halal/Haram classification under AAOIFI standards.
Input Schema:
{
"ticker_or_name": "KAS"
}Example Response:
{
"found": true,
"name": "Kaspa",
"ticker": "KAS",
"status": "HALAL",
"isHalal": true,
"category": "Layer-1 BlockDAG PoW",
"standard": "AAOIFI Shariah Standard No. 59 & No. 21",
"doi": "10.5281/zenodo.23021995",
"justification": "Pure Proof-of-Work blockDAG currency serving purely as a decentralized medium of exchange and computational store of value with zero pre-mine, no lending yield, and zero Riba mechanics.",
"auditUrl": "https://halalcryptoindex.com/coin/kas/"
}get_halal_index_summaryReturns institutional statistics of the HALAL500 index, including total audited assets, compliant vs non-compliant distribution, and AAOIFI methodology specifications.
list_halal_coinsReturns compliant Halal assets filtered by optional category (e.g. Layer 1, Store of Value, Infrastructure) with pagination limits.
halal://methodology — Official text of the AAOIFI-compliant digital asset classification framework (Mal Mutaqawwim, Riba elimination, Gharar elimination, Qabd Hukmi).
halal://assets — Complete machine-readable JSON dataset containing all 820+ audited digital assets with their full Shariah justifications.
audit_crypto_portfolio — Guided portfolio auditing prompt. The AI model systematically queries check_shariah_compliance for every asset in a user's holdings and outputs a structured Shariah compliance report.
Every asset in the Halal Crypto Index is evaluated against a 4-tier institutional framework:
Mal Mutaqawwim (Lawful Property): The asset must possess legitimate economic utility (Manfa'ah) recognized by custom (Urf). Pure gambling, scam, or utility-less tokens are disqualified.
Elimination of Riba (Zero Interest): Synthetic debt, algorithmic lending pools, and fractional-reserve tokens are strictly classified as Haram.
Elimination of Gharar (Zero Excessive Ambiguity): Transparent, deterministic tokenomics without predatory developer minting or exit traps.
Constructive Possession (Qabd Hukmi): Validated spot ownership. High-leverage futures, CFDs, and options are excluded.
@dataset{halal_crypto_mcp_2026,
author = {{Halal Crypto Index Research Group}},
title = {Halal Crypto Screener MCP Server & Institutional AAOIFI Dataset},
year = 2026,
publisher = {Zenodo / GitHub / Model Context Protocol},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.23021995},
url = {https://halalcryptoindex.com}
}Distributed under the MIT License. Maintained by the research board at halalcryptoindex.com.
Check if a cryptocurrency is Halal or Haram under AAOIFI Shariah standards (No. 59 and No. 21). Returns compliance status, scholarly justification, category, and audit link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker_or_name | Yes | The cryptocurrency symbol or name (e.g. 'BTC', 'Bitcoin', 'KAS', 'AAVE', 'SOL') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it names the governing methodology (AAOIFI standards 59 and 21) and enumerates the returned fields (status, justification, category, audit link), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not state behavior for unknown or unsupported tickers, nor whether verdicts are binary or graded beyond 'category'.
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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return contract following immediately. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the methodological basis and the shape of the response, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is failure behavior for unrecognized tickers.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents accepted forms (symbol or full name) with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or resolution detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a cryptocurrency') scoped to a named standard set (AAOIFI No. 59 and No. 21), which is far more specific than a bare 'compliance check'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings get_halal_index_summary or list_halal_coins, though the singular 'a cryptocurrency' implies a single-asset lookup.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The singular phrasing 'Check if a cryptocurrency is...' implicitly signals this is the per-asset counterpart to the list/summary siblings, but the agent must infer that routing decision rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get institutional statistics and methodology summary for the Halal Crypto Index (820 audited assets, AAOIFI standard, CERN Zenodo DOI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful provenance context: asset count (820), the AAOIFI standard, and the Zenodo DOI, all of which signal data source and authority. However, it says nothing about the return format, whether the data is static or refreshed, or versioning of the methodology.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is stated immediately followed by qualifying metadata that 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 zero-parameter read-only tool this is close to sufficient, and the metadata adds credibility. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not convey what the summary actually contains (which statistics, what methodology sections), leaving the return value underspecified.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter documentation is needed here.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('institutional statistics and methodology summary for the Halal Crypto Index'), and the scope details (820 audited assets, AAOIFI standard, Zenodo DOI) sharpen what the tool returns. It is distinguishable from listing or compliance-checking siblings by implication, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than check_shariah_compliance or list_halal_coins, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that a summary/statistics call is the right choice for overview information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List verified Halal cryptocurrencies filtered by optional category (e.g. 'Layer 1', 'Store of Value', 'Infrastructure').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of coins to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| category | No | Optional category filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a curated 'verified' dataset but says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether the list is exhaustive, or what happens when a category matches nothing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and filter dimension all appear in order of importance.
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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least characterize the returned collection (ordering, default limit behavior) to be self-sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented structurally and the baseline is 3. The description does add genuinely useful example category values ('Layer 1', 'Store of Value', 'Infrastructure') that the schema lacks, but says nothing about the limit parameter's semantics or default.
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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('verified Halal cryptocurrencies') plus the filter dimension, so the operation is immediately clear. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the siblings (get_halal_index_summary, check_shariah_compliance), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as check_shariah_compliance for single-asset lookups. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'filtered'.
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.
v1.0.1check_shariah_complianceget_halal_index_summarylist_halal_coinsScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct action and resource: index summary, per-coin Shariah compliance, and filtered listing. There is no meaningful overlap or vague operation that would cause misselection.
All tool names use consistent snake_case with clear verb_noun patterns: get_halal_index_summary, check_shariah_compliance, list_halal_coins. The naming is predictable and readable.
Three tools cover the core read-only screening workflows, but the set is minimal. It is reasonable for the narrow domain, though slightly thin if bulk screening or detailed asset metadata were expected.
The surface covers index methodology, single-coin compliance checks, and filtered listing of halal coins. It lacks bulk multi-coin screening or a standalone detailed asset endpoint, but agents can work around these minor gaps.
Screen stocks and ETFs under AAOIFI Standard 21, with the SEC filing and ratios behind each verdict.
Is it halal? Food, medicines, stocks, funds and crypto, with a verdict for each of the four schools.
Halal stock screening with receipts: every Sharia verdict cites its SEC filing. 5 methodologies.
Evidence-backed crypto due diligence with sources, freshness, and a runtime receipt on every call.
