Skip to main content
Glama
thomasfevre

LayerZero OFT MCP Server

by thomasfevre
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: bridge-oft handles token transfers between existing chains, while deploy-and-configure-oft-multichain handles contract deployment and configuration across chains. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use kebab-case naming, which is consistent. However, the first tool uses a simple verb-noun format (bridge-oft), while the second is more complex with multiple verbs and nouns (deploy-and-configure-oft-multichain), showing a minor deviation in naming style.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a multichain token deployment and bridging domain. While the tools cover core operations, typical LayerZero OFT workflows might benefit from additional tools for tasks like querying deployments or managing configurations.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover deployment and bridging, which are essential operations, but there are notable gaps. Missing tools for querying deployed contracts, checking bridge status, or updating configurations could lead to agent workarounds or failures in complex workflows.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation without disclosing critical behavioral traits such as transaction costs, execution time, security implications, error handling, or whether it's a read-only or destructive action.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a complex tool involving cross-chain token transfers with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on outcomes, error cases, and operational constraints, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter context.

    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 specific action ('bridges'), the resource ('OFT tokens'), and the mechanism ('using LayerZero'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'deploy-and-configure-oft-multichain' which appears to be about setup rather than bridging operations.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or under what conditions it should be invoked. The description lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with the sibling tool.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions high-level actions without disclosing critical behavioral traits like permission requirements, cost implications, whether deployment is reversible, rate limits, or error handling. It states what the tool does but not how it behaves.

    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?

    Single sentence efficiently captures the core functionality with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making every word earn its place.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a complex deployment tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about what happens after deployment, error conditions, side effects, or integration context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

    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 specific action ('deploys an OFT contract to multiple chains, sets up peer connections, and configures enforced options') with the resource (OFT contract) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'bridge-oft' by focusing on deployment and configuration rather than bridging operations.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bridge-oft' or other deployment methods. The description implies usage for initial setup but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

    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

layerzero_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

layerzero_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/thomasfevre/layerzero_mcp'

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