OpenZeppelin Stellar Contracts
Server Details
The OpenZeppelin Stellar Contracts MCP server generates secure smart contracts for the Stellar blockchain based on OpenZeppelin templates. It integrates with AI assistants to automatically enforce OpenZeppelin's security best practices, style rules, and standards at every prompt, enabling developers to create production-ready Fungible Token, Non-Fungible Token, and Stablecoin contracts through AI-driven workflows.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
3 toolsstellar-fungibleBInspect
Make a fungible token per the Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41, similar to ERC-20.
Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | No | Metadata about the contract and author | |
| name | Yes | The name of the contract | |
| 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. | |
| symbol | Yes | The short symbol for the token | |
| premint | No | The number of tokens to premint for the deployer. | |
| 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. | |
| upgradeable | No | Whether the contract can be upgraded. | |
| explicitImplementations | No | Whether the contract should use explicit trait implementations instead of using the default ones provided by the library. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it generates contract source code (not writes to disk) and returns it in a Markdown code block. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The description adds value but is incomplete for a code-generation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and output behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the core action and output format but lacks context on prerequisites, error cases, or integration details. For a contract-generation tool, more guidance would be helpful, but it meets a basic threshold.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Make a fungible token per the Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41, similar to ERC-20.' It specifies the verb ('Make'), resource ('fungible token'), and standards context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stellar-non-fungible' or 'stellar-stablecoin', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred over others. The only usage hint is the return format, but no decision-making criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stellar-non-fungibleCInspect
Make a non-fungible token per the Non-Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-50, similar to ERC-721.
Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | No | Metadata about the contract and author | |
| name | Yes | The name of the contract | |
| 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. | |
| symbol | Yes | The short symbol 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. | |
| tokenUri | No | The metadata URI returned by the token contract for every NFT. | |
| enumerable | No | Whether the NFTs are enumerable (can be iterated over). | |
| sequential | No | Whether the IDs of the minted NFTs will be sequential. | |
| consecutive | No | To batch mint NFTs instead of minting them individually (sequential minting is mandatory). | |
| upgradeable | No | Whether the contract can be upgraded. | |
| explicitImplementations | No | Whether the contract should use explicit trait implementations instead of using the default ones provided by the library. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.' This clarifies the output format and that it's a read-only generation tool, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or any side effects beyond the explicit 'Does not write to disk.' For a tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and output behavior. There's no wasted text, and it's structured to convey essential information quickly, though it could be slightly more detailed given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks depth on usage context, behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance would be beneficial for an AI agent to use this effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool generates a contract based on inputs. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact or affect the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Make a non-fungible token per the Non-Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-50, similar to ERC-721.' This specifies the verb ('Make'), resource ('non-fungible token'), and standard. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stellar-fungible' or 'stellar-stablecoin' beyond mentioning the token type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the token standard but doesn't explain scenarios where you'd choose this over sibling tools like 'stellar-fungible' or 'stellar-stablecoin', nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints beyond the output format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stellar-stablecoinBInspect
Make a stablecoin that uses Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41.
Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | No | Metadata about the contract and author | |
| name | Yes | The name of the contract | |
| 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. | |
| symbol | Yes | The short symbol for the token | |
| premint | No | The number of tokens to premint for the deployer. | |
| 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. | |
| limitations | No | Whether to restrict certain users from transferring tokens, either via allowing or blocking them. | |
| upgradeable | No | Whether the contract can be upgraded. | |
| explicitImplementations | No | Whether the contract should use explicit trait implementations instead of using the default ones provided by the library. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk,' which clarifies the output format and non-persistent nature. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or any limitations beyond the basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function, output format, and key behavioral constraint ('Does not write to disk'). Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and output format but leaves many contextual gaps—no guidance on parameter interactions, error cases, or how the generated code should be used. For a code-generation tool with many configuration options, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, default behaviors, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Make a stablecoin that uses Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41.' It specifies the action ('Make'), resource ('stablecoin'), and technical standards. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stellar-fungible' or 'stellar-non-fungible' beyond mentioning 'stablecoin' specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions compatibility with SEP-41 but doesn't explain when to choose a stablecoin over other token types or how it differs from the sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!