OpenZeppelin Solidity Contracts

Solidity ERC721

solidity-erc721

Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-721 standard.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`info`	No	Metadata about the contract and author
`name`	Yes	The name of the contract
`votes`	No	Whether to keep track of individual units for voting in on-chain governance. Voting durations can be expressed as block numbers or timestamps (defaulting to block number if not specified).
`access`	No	The type of access control to provision. Ownable is a simple mechanism with a single account authorized for all privileged actions. Roles is a flexible mechanism with a separate role for each privileged action. A role can have many authorized accounts. Managed enables a central contract to define a policy that allows certain callers to access certain functions.
`symbol`	Yes	The short symbol for the token
`baseUri`	No	A base uri for the token
`burnable`	No	Whether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
`mintable`	No	Whether privileged accounts will be able to create more supply or emit more tokens
`pausable`	No	Whether privileged accounts will be able to pause specifically marked functionality. Useful for emergency response.
`enumerable`	No	Whether to allow on-chain enumeration of all tokens or those owned by an account. Increases gas cost of transfers.
`uriStorage`	No	Allows updating token URIs for individual token IDs
`incremental`	No	Whether new tokens will be automatically assigned an incremental id
`upgradeable`	No	Whether 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.
`namespacePrefix`	No	The prefix for ERC-7201 namespace identifiers. It should be derived from the project name or a unique naming convention specific to the project. Used only if the contract includes storage variables and upgradeability is enabled. Default is "myProject".
`crossChainBridging`	No	Whether to embed an ERC-7786 based bridge directly in the token contract, making it natively crosschain. Crosschain transfers with registered counterparts burn the token on the source chain and mint it on the destination chain. If also using incremental token ids, mint only on a single chain and link counterparts without minting, otherwise colliding ids can strand bridged tokens.
`crossChainLinkAllowOverride`	No	Whether to allow replacing a crosschain link that has already been registered. Only used if crossChainBridging is set to "erc7786native".

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the tool 'Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk.' This is valuable transparency about output format and side effects, though it does not speculate on parameter combinations or potential failures.

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 only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the secondary behavior clarification following. Every word earns its place, and there is zero waste 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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, nested objects) but fully descriptive schema, the description appropriately focuses on the output and side-effect behavior. It answers what the tool returns and whether it persists files. Without an output schema, this coverage is adequate for a code generator.

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 covers 100% of the 16 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides thorough details such as default values, constraints, and dependencies (e.g., the crossChainLinkAllowOverride conditional).

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's function: 'Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-721 standard.' It also specifies the output is source code in a Markdown code block and that it does not write to disk. This distinguishes it from siblings like solidity-erc20 and solidity-erc1155.

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 for generating ERC-721 NFTs but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like ERC-1155 for semi-fungible tokens or ERC-20 for fungible tokens. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, making it only implicitly clear based on the standard name.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?