What can you do with this server?

The Tradallo reputation server lets you query and cryptographically verify (ed25519) trading reputation data for humans and AI agents. All responses are JCS-canonicalized and verified against Tradallo's public key registry before being returned. * Get Track Records (get_track_record): Fetch verified performance stats (Sharpe ratio, win rate, max drawdown, PnL, trade count) for a human or agent handle, across all-time and rolling 30/90/365-day windows. * Search Records (search_records): Discover trading records by filtering on Sharpe ratio, trade count, drawdown, venue, and principal type — sorted by your chosen metric. * Verify a Universal Trade Receipt (verify_utr): Look up a trade receipt by SHA-256 hash to confirm on-chain anchoring via Solana memo, returning chain, signature, slot, explorer URL, and notarizer pubkey for independent verification. * Get Agent Version History (get_versions): Retrieve an agent's full version history, including semver tags, version/policy hashes, and deployment timestamps. * Fetch Raw Trade Receipts (get_utrs): Get paginated raw Universal Trade Receipts (UTRs) for an agent, each with a recomputed SHA-256 hash for spot-checking, filterable by timestamp and page size.

Which integrations are available for this server?

Allows verifying if a Universal Trade Receipt (UTR) hash has been anchored on the Solana blockchain via a Solana memo, providing on-chain verification details such as chain, signature, slot, and Solana Explorer URL.

de en es ja ko ru zh

tradallo-reputation

Official

by tradallo

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions(1)

TypeScript

Remote

@tradallo/reputation

npm version license MCP

MCP server + TypeScript client + CLI for the Tradallo Verified Record Protocol. Three ways to query cryptographically-verified human and agent trading records:

# CLI — pretty terminal cards, no install required
npx @tradallo/reputation card alpha-momentum-v3 --agent

# MCP — drop into Claude Desktop / Cursor / any MCP client (config below)

# Programmatic — typed TS/JS client
import { TradalloClient } from "@tradallo/reputation";

Every response is JCS-canonicalized + ed25519-verified against Tradallo's published pubkey at tradallo.com/.well-known/tradallo-pubkeys.json before being surfaced. The signature lives in the envelope; this client fetches the pubkey registry, resolves the key_id, verifies the signature, and only then returns the data. Replay protection via served_at + max_age_seconds.

Install

Claude Desktop

Add to your claude_desktop_config.json (Settings → Developer → Edit Config):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tradallo-reputation": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@tradallo/reputation"]
    }
  }
}

Restart Claude Desktop. The Tradallo tools should appear in the tool palette.

Cursor

Add to ~/.cursor/mcp.json (or via Cursor Settings → MCP):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tradallo-reputation": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@tradallo/reputation"]
    }
  }
}

Generic MCP client

npx @tradallo/reputation

Speaks MCP over stdio.

Local dev / staging

Point at your own deploy by setting TRADALLO_BASE_URL:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tradallo-reputation": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@tradallo/reputation"],
      "env": { "TRADALLO_BASE_URL": "http://localhost:3000" }
    }
  }
}

Related MCP server: aip-identity

CLI

The same binary doubles as a terminal CLI when invoked with a subcommand:

# Pretty card with verification status, stats, version metadata
npx @tradallo/reputation card alpha-momentum-v3 --agent

# Raw verified JSON (for piping into jq, etc.)
npx @tradallo/reputation track-record alpha-momentum-v3 --agent

# Discovery
npx @tradallo/reputation search --min-sharpe 1.5 --min-trades 200 --sort-by sharpe

# Agent version history
npx @tradallo/reputation versions alpha-momentum-v3

# Paginated UTRs
npx @tradallo/reputation utrs alpha-momentum-v3 --limit 50

# Look up a specific UTR by hash
npx @tradallo/reputation verify <sha256-hex> alpha-momentum-v3

# Help
npx @tradallo/reputation help

NO_COLOR=1 disables ANSI. TRADALLO_BASE_URL overrides the API base.

Programmatic client

Embed the verifying client in your own TS/JS code:

import { TradalloClient } from "@tradallo/reputation";

const client = new TradalloClient(); // defaults to https://tradallo.com

// Throws if signature invalid, replay window expired, or pubkey unknown.
// Returns the verified `data` payload (not the envelope wrapper).
const record = await client.getSigned<{ stats: { all_time: { sharpe_ratio: number | null } } }>(
  "/api/v1/agents/alpha-momentum-v3/track-record",
);

if ((record.stats.all_time.sharpe_ratio ?? 0) >= 1.5) {
  // ... delegate capital, copy trades, etc.
}

The verification flow happens INSIDE getSigned. If anything fails — bad signature, expired envelope, unknown key, schema mismatch — the call throws. You never see unverified data.

Tools

`get_track_record(handle, principal_type?)`

Fetch a verified track record for a Tradallo profile or agent.

Inputs:

handle (string, required) — the Tradallo handle (e.g. aaronjordan, alpha-momentum-v3)
principal_type ("human" | "agent", optional, default "agent") — which namespace to look in

Returns: the full signed payload (verification level, all-time + rolling 30/90/365d stats including Sharpe, max drawdown, win rate, PnL, expectancy).

Example use:

"Show me Aaron Jordan's verified trading record on Tradallo."

`search_records(filters)`

Discover verified records matching performance criteria.

Inputs (all optional): min_sharpe, min_trades, max_drawdown, venue, principal_type, sort_by, limit.

Returns: sorted list of human/agent summaries with their stats. Signature-verified.

`verify_utr(utr_hash)`

Look up a Universal Trade Receipt by hash. Returns whether Tradallo has anchored that hash on-chain via a Solana memo, and if so the chain, signature, slot, posted_at, Solana Explorer URL, and notarizer pubkey so the caller can independently verify on-chain.

Returns: { found, anchored_on_chain, chain?, signature?, slot?, posted_at?, explorer_url?, notarizer_pubkey? }.

`get_versions(agent_handle)`

Fetch an agent's full version history (semver tags, version_hash, policy_hash, when each version was deployed and superseded). Signature-verified.

`get_utrs(agent_handle, since?, limit?)`

Fetch raw Universal Trade Receipts for an agent, paginated cursor-style on closed_at. Each receipt includes its SHA-256 hash recomputed by Tradallo so consumers can spot-check individual records.

How verification works

Every signed Tradallo API response wraps the data in a JCS-canonicalized (RFC 8785) envelope with an ed25519 signature:

{
  "data": { ... },
  "schema_version": "1",
  "served_at": "2026-04-30T22:29:52.776Z",
  "max_age_seconds": 60,
  "signature": {
    "alg": "ed25519",
    "key_id": "tradallo-prod-2026-04",
    "sig": "<base64>"
  }
}

This MCP server:

Fetches /.well-known/tradallo-pubkeys.json (cached 5 min)
Resolves signature.key_id → ed25519 public key
JCS-canonicalizes {data, schema_version, served_at, max_age_seconds}
Verifies the signature against the pubkey
Rejects responses where now > served_at + max_age_seconds (replay protection)

If any check fails, the tool call returns an error rather than the data. The agent is told why.

Why this matters

Identity (who is the agent) and payments (how does it pay) are solved in 2026 by x402, MPP, Coinbase Agentic Wallets, and ERC-8004. Reputation is not. When an agent decides whether to delegate capital, copy trades, or subscribe to signals from another party, it needs a way to ask: "is their record real?"

This MCP server is the lowest-friction way to ask that question.

x402 — what's coming

Today the public API is anonymous and IP-rate-limited (60 req/min). We're rolling out tiered access via x402, the HTTP 402 payment-required standard, so agents can pay USDC micro-transactions on Base to bypass rate limits and unlock higher-throughput tiers without any signup or API-key dance.

Forward-compatible expectations:

Anonymous: 60 req/min/IP (today, free)
Active subscriber: 600 req/min via API key (in dev — Phase 4.4)
x402 micro-payment: per-call USDC payment for one-shot heavy queries; no account required (planned Phase 4.5)
Operator / Fleet tiers: webhook subscriptions, custom subdomains, priority indexing

The rate-limit response will gain an x402 payment-options block once the facilitator pipeline is wired. This MCP server will start auto-paying when it sees a 402 with x402 metadata. Until then, all queries are free and verifiable.

Reference agent

A working example agent that queries Tradallo before delegating capital: github.com/tradallo/agent.

Spec & docs

Protocol overview: docs/PROTOCOL.md
Spec: docs/SPEC_V1.1.md
Public API: https://tradallo.com/api/v1/
Pubkey registry: https://tradallo.com/.well-known/tradallo-pubkeys.json

Changelog

See CHANGELOG.md.

License

MIT

Available Tools

5 tools

get_track_recordAInspect

Fetch a verified trading track record for a Tradallo profile (human) or agent. Returns cryptographically-verified statistics (Sharpe, win rate, max drawdown, PnL, trade count) computed from on-chain or in-house-sim trade history. The signature is ed25519-verified against Tradallo's published pubkey before this tool returns.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	Yes	The Tradallo handle to look up (e.g. 'aaronjordan' for a human, 'alpha-momentum-v3' for an agent).
`principal_type`	No	Whether the handle is a human profile or an agent. Defaults to 'agent' (the more common reputation-query use case).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that statistics are cryptographically-verified and signature-verified before return, and mentions computation from on-chain or in-house-sim history. Does not cover potential errors or permissions.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key details.

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?

No output schema, but description lists return values (Sharpe, win rate, etc.) and explains verification process. Missing pagination or rate limits, but adequate for a simple fetch 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches a verified trading track record for a Tradallo profile (human or agent) and lists the statistics returned. It distinguishes from siblings like get_utrs and verify_utr by focusing on track record data.

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 implies the tool should be used when a verified track record is needed, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not scenarios. Sibling tools have different purposes, so context is clear.

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

get_utrsAInspect

Fetch raw Universal Trade Receipts for an agent. Each UTR is a v2 canonical receipt with its SHA-256 hash recomputed by Tradallo so consumers can spot-check individual receipts. Paginated cursor-style on closed_at.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_handle`	Yes	The agent's handle.
`since`	No	ISO timestamp; only return UTRs closed at or after this. Defaults to the agent's anchor.
`limit`	No	Page size (default 100, max 500).

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

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 each UTR's SHA-256 hash is recomputed for spot-checking, and pagination is cursor-style on closed_at. This reveals behavioral traits beyond a simple fetch, though auth requirements and side effects are not mentioned.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by relevant detail and pagination. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description does not fully explain return format or pagination details like cursor handling. It mentions 'v2 canonical receipt' and hash, but an agent might need more clarity on response structure. Adequate but with gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implicitly relating closed_at to the 'since' parameter via pagination mention. No further parameter details are provided.

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 fetches raw Universal Trade Receipts for an agent, specifies the resource and action, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it provides v2 canonical receipts with recomputed SHA-256 hashes. It also notes pagination, setting it apart from other tools like verify_utr.

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 by describing the tool's function but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_track_record, verify_utr). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

get_versionsAInspect

Fetch the full version history of an agent (semver tags, version_hash, policy_hash, when each version was deployed and superseded). Useful for understanding which version of an agent's policy produced a given track record. The response is signature-verified.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_handle`	Yes	The agent's handle.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description covers key behaviors: lists return fields and states response is signature-verified. Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or authentication, but sufficient for a read-only fetch.

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 focused sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with action and resource.

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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers return fields, verification, and a use case. Could specify if history is limited (e.g., pagination), but 'full version history' implies completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for agent_handle. The tool description does not add further information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches full version history with specific fields (semver, hashes, timestamps), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle track records or UTRs. Includes a use case.

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?

Provides useful context: 'useful for understanding which version of an agent's policy produced a given track record.' Does not explicitly exclude other uses or name alternatives, but context is clear.

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

search_recordsAInspect

Search verified trading records by performance filters (Sharpe, max drawdown, trade count, venue, principal type). Returns a list of summary records sorted by the chosen metric. Useful for an agent shopping for strategies that meet specific risk/return criteria. The response is signature-verified against Tradallo's published pubkey before being returned.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`min_sharpe`	No	Minimum annualized Sharpe ratio.
`min_trades`	No	Minimum trade count.
`max_drawdown`	No	Maximum drawdown as a fraction (e.g. 0.25 for 25%).
`venue`	No	Restrict to a specific venue (e.g. 'hyperliquid', 'dydx').
`principal_type`	No
`sort_by`	No	Field to sort results by (descending). Default: net_pnl.
`limit`	No	Max results (default 25, max 100).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are signature-verified, which is a notable behavioral trait. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or read-only nature, but for a search tool the description is fairly 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and parameters, then adds usage context and verification detail efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description could have detailed the return fields. 'List of summary records' is vague. However, parameter coverage and sibling context make it adequate but not complete.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filter parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches verified trading records with performance filters and returns sorted summary records. It distinguishes from sibling get/verify tools by focusing on search and filtering.

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 says it is useful when shopping for strategies meeting risk/return criteria, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings.

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

verify_utrAInspect

Look up a Universal Trade Receipt by hash. Returns whether Tradallo has anchored that hash on-chain via a Solana memo transaction, and if so, returns the chain, signature, slot, posted_at, explorer URL, and notarizer pubkey so the caller can independently verify the anchor on Solana Explorer. The signed-envelope response is ed25519-verified before this tool returns.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`utr_hash`	Yes	The 64-char hex SHA-256 UTR hash to look up.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description fully carries the burden and discloses that the response indicates anchoring status, returns detailed verification fields, and involves ed25519 verification before returning. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded purpose statement and no redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequately explains return fields for a lookup tool with one parameter, though could mention error handling or format of the boolean result.

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?

Single parameter utr_hash; schema already has a complete description (100% coverage). The description adds no further meaning 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?

Clearly states the tool looks up a Universal Trade Receipt by hash and explains the output structure, distinguishing it from siblings like get_utrs and search_records.

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?

Implies use when you have a UTR hash to verify on-chain anchoring; lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from sibling names provides some guidance.

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

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clear, distinct purpose: fetching a track record, fetching raw receipts, retrieving version history, searching records by filters, and verifying a receipt's on-chain anchor. No two tools overlap in functionality, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_track_record, get_utrs, get_versions, search_records, verify_utr), using lowercase with underscores. The naming is predictable and easy to parse.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is ideal for this domain: they cover the core operations (fetching individual records, listing receipts, version history, search, and verification) without unnecessary bloat. The scope is well-defined and each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides a complete surface for querying and verifying trading reputation data: individual track records, raw receipts, version history, search by filters, and cryptographic verification. No obvious gaps exist for a read-only verification service.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

HODLXXI Read-Only A
io.github.hodlxxi
Public read-only MCP server for HODLXXI agent identity, trust, receipts, and verification.
Blockchain Cryptocurrency
262
saagarpatel.dev Portfolio A
io.github.saagpatel
Agent-native MCP server over the public saagarpatel.dev corpus. Read-only, stateless.
Search Documentation Access
82
tenzro
xyz.tenzro
Tenzro Network MCP server: wallet, identity, payments, inference, staking, bridges, verification.
Blockchain Cryptocurrency Payments & Billing
2
wallet-verifier-mcp B
com.wallet-connectors
MCP server for verifying EUDI/Talao wallet data via OIDC4VP (pull) for AI agents.
Security Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech
12

Related MCP Servers

agentfolio-mcp-server
Agent Orchestration Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech
0xbrainkid
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server for AgentFolio — the identity and reputation layer for AI agents. Query agent profiles, trust scores, verification status, and marketplace listings through 8 MCP tools.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-03-25 09:09 UTC)
9
107
1
MIT
aip-identity
Autonomous Agents Security
The-Nexus-Guard
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for AI agent identity — verify agents with Ed25519 signatures, check trust scores, sign and verify content, exchange encrypted messages. Built on the Agent Identity Protocol (AIP).
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-09 12:03 UTC)
8
MIT
AgentTrust
Security Autonomous Agents
raditotev
F
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Reputation and trust scoring service for AI agents, exposed as an MCP server. Evaluate counterparties, report interactions, issue portable trust certificates, and detect Sybil attacks.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-03-22 16:24 UTC)
23
web3-agents-mcp
Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech
hanjoonchoe
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
An MCP server that bridges ERC-8004 agent identity, reputation, and validation registries into tool calls, enabling discovery, inspection, and verification of on-chain AI agents from any MCP client.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-13 08:36 UTC)
8
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/tradallo/reputation'

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