Skip to main content
Glama

OpenZeppelin Solidity Contracts

by com.openzeppelin.mcp

Solidity Account

solidity-account

Make an account contract that follows the ERC-4337 standard.

Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
infoNoMetadata about the contract and author
nameYesThe name of the account contract
signerNoDefines the signature verification algorithm used by the account to verify user operations. Options: - ECDSA: Standard Ethereum signature validation using secp256k1, validates signatures against a specified owner address - EIP7702: Special ECDSA validation using account's own address as signer, enables EOAs to delegate execution rights - Multisig: ERC-7913 multisignature requiring minimum number of signatures from authorized signers - MultisigWeighted: ERC-7913 weighted multisignature where signers have different voting weights - P256: NIST P-256 curve (secp256r1) validation for integration with Passkeys and HSMs - RSA: RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature validation (RFC8017) for PKI systems and HSMs - WebAuthn: Web Authentication (WebAuthn) assertion validation for integration with Passkeys and HSMs on top of P256
upgradeableNoWhether the smart contract is upgradeable. Transparent uses more complex proxy with higher overhead, requires less changes in your contract. Can also be used with beacons. UUPS uses simpler proxy with less overhead, requires including extra code in your contract. Allows flexibility for authorizing upgrades.
ERC721HolderNoWhether to implement the `onERC721Received` function to allow the account to receive ERC721 tokens.
ERC1155HolderNoWhether to implement the `onERC1155Received` function to allow the account to receive ERC1155 tokens.
ERC7579ModulesNoWhether to implement the ERC-7579 compatibility to enable functionality on the account with modules.
batchedExecutionNoWhether to implement a minimal batching interface for the account to allow multiple operations to be executed in a single transaction following the ERC-7821 standard.
signatureValidationNoWhether to implement the ERC-1271 standard for validating signatures. This is useful for the account to verify signatures.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention any other nuances such as error handling or parameter-driven behavior changes, resulting in a moderate level of transparency.

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 short, focused sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the return format and a key side effect, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but covers the essential aspects: what it creates, the format of the result, and that it does not write to disk. Given the rich schema descriptions, the tool is adequately contextualized for correct invocation.

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% and every property has a detailed description (e.g., signer enum options, upgradeable types, ERC-721/1155 holders). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema compensates fully, so the baseline score 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 begins with 'Make an account contract that follows the ERC-4337 standard,' which clearly states the action and resource. It also specifies the output format (Markdown code block) and the side effect (does not write to disk), distinguishing it from sibling contract generators by scope and behavior.

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 frames the tool as for generating an ERC-4337 compliant account contract, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not guide.

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

All OpenZeppelin Solidity Contracts toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct contract type (account, custom, ERC1155, ERC20, ERC721, governor, RWA, stablecoin), and descriptions clearly differentiate between them, even for the ERC20-based variants.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the identical 'solidity-<type>' pattern, providing a predictable and consistent naming scheme across the entire server.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools covering the main Solidity contract categories plus a custom option, the count is well-scoped for a contract generator and avoids unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers major contract types, but it lacks support for upgradeable contracts (proxies) and some common OpenZeppelin features like ERC4626 vaults. The 'solidity-custom' tool can partially compensate for these gaps.

Resources