What can you do with this server?

Serve AML and compliance risk scoring for crypto addresses and transactions to AI agents over MCP. * check_address: score a single address 0–100 with risk band, flags, and (with API key) itemized signals. * screen_transaction: score both sides of a transfer — pre-flight via from/to (optional amount/asset) or by tx_hash for already-broadcast transactions. * Supported chains: Ethereum, BSC, TRON, TON, and Bitcoin. * Returns a risk score, band (clean, low, elevated, high, critical), flags, and partial status for degraded data sources. * With an API key, responses include per-signal reasons: category, source, entity, confidence, severity, and contribution. * Without a key, a keyless tier offers limited free checks with coarser reason_summary output.

Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides AML and compliance risk scoring for Bitcoin addresses and pre-flight transactions, returning risk scores, bands, flags, and supporting signals. Provides AML and compliance risk scoring for Ethereum addresses and transactions, returning risk scores, bands, flags, and supporting signals. Provides AML and compliance risk scoring for TON addresses and transactions, returning risk scores, bands, flags, and supporting signals.

How do I use traql MCP server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@traql MCP server Is this Ethereum address safe to send crypto to?" 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.

de en es ja ko ru zh

traql MCP server

Official

by traql

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

traql MCP server

npm License: MIT Glama

AML and compliance risk scoring for crypto addresses and transactions, exposed to AI agents over the Model Context Protocol.

Ask your agent "is it safe to send to this address?" and it gets back a 0–100 risk score, a band, the risk categories behind it, and — with an API key — every individual signal with its source and confidence.

ethereum address 0x8589427373d6d84e98730d7795d8f6f8731fda16
RISK 100/100 — CRITICAL
Flags: sanctions, mixer, scam

Signals (21):
  +80  [sanctions/eth_labels] direct.sanctions — sanctions label "Tornado.Cash: Donate" [entity Tornado.Cash: Donate, confidence 0.80]
  +68  [mixer/eth_labels] direct.mixer — mixer label "Tornado.Cash: Donate" [entity Tornado.Cash: Donate, confidence 0.80]
  +10  [mixer] behavior.mixer_contact — direct contact with mixer 0xdd4c48c0b24039969fc16d1cdf626eab821d3384
  +9   [sanctions/ofac_sdn] indirect.sanctions — sent to Semenov Roman (sanctions, 18% of USDC volume) [entity Semenov Roman, confidence 1.00]
  ... and 17 more

Computed at 2026-08-23T11:42:49Z.

Backed by traql: OFAC SDN, UK OFSI, EU and UN sanctions lists, Tether/Circle freeze events, curated hack and mixer attributions, and counterparty exposure analysis across Ethereum, BSC, TRON, TON and Bitcoin.

Quick start

Requires Node.js 18+.

npx -y @traql/mcp

The server speaks MCP over stdio, so you normally point a client at it rather than running it by hand.

Claude Code

claude mcp add traql --env TRAQL_API_KEY=your_key -- npx -y @traql/mcp

Claude Desktop

Add to claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "traql": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@traql/mcp"],
      "env": { "TRAQL_API_KEY": "your_key" }
    }
  }
}

Cursor

Add to ~/.cursor/mcp.json (or .cursor/mcp.json in a project) using the same mcpServers block as above.

VS Code

Add to .vscode/mcp.json:

{
  "servers": {
    "traql": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@traql/mcp"],
      "env": { "TRAQL_API_KEY": "your_key" }
    }
  }
}

Related MCP server: zarq-risk-intelligence

Getting an API key

Sign up at app.traql.io, confirm your email — free checks are included — and issue a key under API keys. The secret is shown once; it can be rotated or revoked at any time.

Without a key the server still runs, on the keyless tier: the hosted API serves 3 free checks per IP per day so you can try it immediately, then asks for per-call payment over x402. Keyless responses are also coarser — a single reason phrase instead of itemized signals — and rate limits are tighter. For anything beyond a first look, set a key.

Configuration

Variable	Required	Default	Description
`TRAQL_API_KEY`	recommended	—	API key from the traql dashboard. Sent as `X-API-Key`. Unlocks itemized signals and higher limits.
`TRAQL_API_URL`	no	`https://api.traql.io`	Base URL of the API. Point it at your own deployment if you self-host traql.
`TRAQL_TIMEOUT_MS`	no	`30000`	Per-request timeout in milliseconds.

Tools

`check_address`

Scores a single address.

Argument	Type	Required	Description
`chain`	`ethereum` \| `bsc` \| `tron` \| `ton` \| `bitcoin`	yes	Network the address belongs to.
`address`	string	yes	Address in the chain's native format.

`screen_transaction`

Scores both sides of a transfer, in one of two modes:

Pre-flight — pass from and to (optionally amount and asset) to screen a transfer before broadcasting it. Works on every supported chain.
By hash — pass tx_hash alone to look up a transaction that is already on-chain. Supported on Ethereum, BSC, TRON and TON.

Argument	Type	Required	Description
`chain`	chain enum	yes	Network the transaction belongs to.
`from`	string	pre-flight	Sender address.
`to`	string	pre-flight	Recipient address.
`amount`	string	no	Integer amount in the asset's base units (e.g. `1000000` for 1 USDT).
`asset`	string	no	Asset or token symbol, e.g. `USDT`.
`tx_hash`	string	by-hash	Hash of a broadcast transaction. Mutually exclusive with `from`/`to`.

Response

Both tools return human-readable text plus structuredContent:

{
  "subject": { "type": "address", "chain": "ethereum", "address": "0x…" },
  "result": {
    "score": 100,
    "band": "critical",
    "flags": ["sanctions", "mixer", "scam"],
    "partial": false,
    "computed_at": "2026-08-23T11:42:49Z",
    "reasons": [
      {
        "code": "direct.sanctions",
        "message": "sanctions label \"Tornado.Cash: Donate\" from eth_labels (severity 100 × confidence 0.80 = 80.0)",
        "contribution": 80,
        "category": "sanctions",
        "source": "eth_labels",
        "entity": "Tornado.Cash: Donate",
        "severity": 100,
        "confidence": 0.8,
        "eff": 80.0
      }
    ]
  }
}

Score bands: clean 0–9, low 10–39, elevated 40–69, high 70–89, critical 90–100.

partial: true means an upstream data source was degraded while computing the result — read the score as a lower bound, not a final verdict.

Each successful call consumes one check from the configured account. Malformed input is rejected locally where possible, so it costs nothing.

Development

npm install
npm run build
npm test

Notes

Scores are advisory signals for triage and automation. They are not a legal determination of wrongdoing, and they do not by themselves discharge any regulatory obligation.

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools

check_addressCheck address riskA

Read-only

Score a single crypto address for AML and compliance risk.

Returns a risk score from 0 (clean) to 100 (critical), the band it falls into, and the risk categories that drove it — sanctions, mixer, scam, darknet, stolen_funds, ransomware, high_risk_exchange and others. With an API key configured, the response also itemizes every contributing signal with its data source, severity and confidence, so the verdict can be explained rather than just asserted.

Use it before sending funds to an unfamiliar address, to triage an address a user pasted, to check a counterparty in an investigation, or to vet a deposit address. Covers Ethereum, BSC, TRON, TON and Bitcoin. Each call consumes one check from the configured traql account.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	Blockchain network the subject belongs to.
`address`	Yes	Address in the chain's native format: 0x-hex for ethereum and bsc, base58 starting with T for tron, EQ/UQ for ton, and legacy or bech32 for bitcoin.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes
`subject`	Yes	Echo of the canonical subject that was scored.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact return semantics (risk score 0-100, bands, categories), conditional verbosity with an API key, and the resource cost ('Each call consumes one check'). It doesn't contradict annotations, and the additional consumption caveat is valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and returns, then use cases, then chains and consumption. It is concise at four sentences, with no fluff. It could be slightly tighter (the chain list is redundant with the schema enum), but it remains efficiently structured and readable.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return types, but it still explains the risk score range, band concept, and categories. It also covers supported chains, use cases, and the API-key enhancement. Everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result is present, so it is fully 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (chain enum and address format), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics—it only references the chain coverage implicitly, which the schema already communicates. No additional meaning is introduced 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 begins with a clear verb-resource pair ('Score a single crypto address for AML and compliance risk') that precisely states the tool's function. It also differentiates from the sibling tool screen_transaction by focusing on address-level vetting rather than transaction screening.

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 lists concrete use cases ('before sending funds', 'triage a pasted address', 'vet a deposit address'), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude transaction screening, but the single sibling tool makes the distinction evident; mentioning that tool as an alternative would make this a perfect 5.

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

screen_transactionScreen transaction riskA

Read-only

Screen a transaction for AML and compliance risk by scoring both sides of the transfer.

Two modes, chosen by which arguments are given:

Pre-flight — pass from and to (optionally amount and asset) to screen a transfer before it is broadcast. Works on every supported chain.
By hash — pass only tx_hash to look up a transaction that is already on-chain. Supported on ethereum, bsc, tron and ton.

Returns the same score, band, flags and itemized signals as an address check, with each signal marked as applying to the sending or receiving side. Use it as a pre-send safety gate, or to review a payment that already went out. Each call consumes one check from the configured traql account.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Recipient address, for screening a transfer that has not been broadcast yet.
`from`	No	Sender address, for screening a transfer that has not been broadcast yet.
`asset`	No	Optional asset or token symbol being transferred, for example USDT.
`chain`	Yes	Blockchain network the subject belongs to.
`amount`	No	Optional transfer amount as an integer string in the asset's base units (for example 1000000 for 1 USDT, which has 6 decimals). Never a decimal fraction.
`tx_hash`	No	Hash of an already-broadcast transaction. Mutually exclusive with `from`/`to`. Supported on ethereum, bsc, tron and ton only.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes
`subject`	Yes	Echo of the canonical subject that was scored.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Each call consumes one check from the configured traql account' (a quota side effect) and describes the return structure ('score, band, flags and itemized signals'). This is consistent with annotations and provides useful operational detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by a bulleted breakdown of modes. The information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose—no filler or redundancy. It is slightly long but contains only necessary details, earning a 4 rather than 5 due to the length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, six parameters, chain restrictions, and an existing output schema), the description covers all essential usage context: modes, which chains support which mode, use cases, and the quota side effect. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the two modes and how parameters relate (pre-flight: from/to, optional amount/asset; by-hash: tx_hash only, mutually exclusive). It also gives an example for the amount format, reinforcing the schema description. This is helpful clarification beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Screen a transaction for AML and compliance risk by scoring both sides.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling address-check tool by focusing on transactions and even references the shared return format ('same score, band, flags and itemized signals as an address check'). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from check_address.

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 clearly states when to use it: 'Use it as a pre-send safety gate, or to review a payment that already went out.' It also details two explicit modes with the exact parameters to pass ('pass from and to...' vs 'pass only tx_hash') and lists chain support for each. While it doesn't explicitly name check_address as an alternative, the mention of 'same... as an address check' implies routing, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

2 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 24, 2026
- First observedcheck_address
- First observedscreen_transaction

Install Server

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools target distinctly different entities: check_address evaluates a single address, while screen_transaction evaluates a transaction by scoring both sides. They are clearly separated by purpose and input requirements, with no overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_address and screen_transaction. The verbs ('check' vs 'screen') are semantically appropriate and the noun targets (address, transaction) are clear, maintaining a uniform naming style.

Tool Count4/5

With only two tools, the server is compact but well-scoped for its narrow AML screening purpose. Each tool covers a fundamental operation (address check and transaction screening), so the count feels appropriate rather than insufficient, though it is below the typical 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the primary use cases for AML risk assessment: pre-transaction screening and single-address checks. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of batch processing or historical investigation features, but these are not essential for the stated purpose and do not create dead ends in common workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessNo issues

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

Probity Wallet Reputation A
ai.probitylabs
Pre-transaction risk screening for Ethereum addresses: signed score, sanctions, audit trail.
Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech Cryptocurrency
71
Didit MCP ServerOAuth
me.didit
KYC, KYB, AML, wallet screening, transaction monitoring, and fraud workflows for AI agents.
Security Cryptocurrency Finance
2
CYRE Guardian
io.github.milesdev888
Solana address risk grades and token scans for AI agents. Pay-per-call via x402 (USDC on Base).
Blockchain Cryptocurrency Security
1
SENTINEL Compliance Intelligence A
io.github.INJprotocol
AML/CFT compliance oracle: wallet screening, sanctions, PEPs, jurisdiction risk.
Legal & Compliance Finance Security
222

Related MCP Servers

BICScan MCP Server
Blockchain Security
ahnlabio
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Provides blockchain address risk scoring and asset information through the BICScan API, allowing users to assess risks for crypto addresses, domains, and dApps on a scale of 0-100.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-17 01:35 UTC)
2
17
MIT
zarq-risk-intelligenceofficial
Blockchain Finance Research & Data
zarq-ai
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Real-time crypto risk scoring for AI agents. Trust Score, crash probability, and distance-to-default for 205 tokens. Free, no API key needed.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-10 15:44 UTC)
MIT
anchain-data-mcpofficial
Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech Cryptocurrency
AnChainAI
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to access AnChain.AI blockchain intelligence APIs for risk assessment, sanctions screening, and transaction analysis on blockchain addresses and transactions.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-18 22:44 UTC)
20
6
AGPL 3.0
BlackSwan MCP Server
Cryptocurrency Finance
blackswanwtf
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI agents to access real-time crypto risk intelligence with two tools: Flare for precursor detection and Core for overall risk environment assessment.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-02-13 12:30 UTC)
4
-

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/traql/mcp-server'

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

traql MCP server

Quick start

Claude Code

Claude Desktop

Cursor

VS Code

Getting an API key

Configuration

Tools

check_address

screen_transaction

Response

Development

Notes

Links

License

Available Tools

Output Schema

TDQS

Output Schema

TDQS

Tool Schema Changelog

TDQS

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

BICScan MCP Server

zarq-risk-intelligenceofficial

anchain-data-mcpofficial

BlackSwan MCP Server

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

`check_address`

`screen_transaction`