Ingravity EVM Security MCP

by dev.workers.daviddelmoral79.red-shape-1b3b

ingravity_inspectEvmTransactionFirewall

MANDATORY Pre-Flight Firewall & Anti-Drainer Simulator ($0.10 USDC on Base via x402). Prevents autonomous AI agents and trading bots from catastrophic wallet draining, honeypots, and unlimited spender permits before signing. Delivers deterministic PROCEED or ABORT directive.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "ingravity_inspectEvmTransactionFirewall"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Target contract or recipient address (0x...)
`data`	Yes	Hexadecimal transaction calldata (0x...)
`from`	No	Sender wallet address (0x...)
`value`	No	Native ETH value in wei (decimal string)
`chainId`	No	EVM Chain ID (e.g., 8453 for Base)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the $0.10 USDC Base/x402 cost and a deterministic PROCEED/ABORT output, but it does not explicitly state whether the simulator is read-only, how payment authorization works, or what failure/rate-limit behavior to expect.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, cost, protections, and output directive. The all-caps 'MANDATORY' framing is somewhat promotional, but the definition remains compact and readable.

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?

For a paid simulation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose, cost, and directive output. However, it leaves notable gaps around read-only behavior, x402 payment mechanics, and the precise meaning of the PROCEED/ABORT 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters, including to, data, from, value, and chainId. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific action and resource: a pre-flight EVM transaction firewall/anti-drainer simulator before signing. It is distinguishable in broad terms from sibling tools like token rugpull scanning or contract auditing, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or spell out sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear usage context: run this before signing a transaction to prevent wallet draining, honeypots, and unlimited permits. It does not provide exclusions or explicitly compare when to use this versus sibling safety tools.

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

All Ingravity EVM Security MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?