Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ingravity EVM Security MCP

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

ingravity_scanTokenRugpullAndHoneypot

5-EVM Honeypot & Rugpull Forensic Scanner by tokenAddress ($0.50 / $0.25 USDC floor + 0.15% Pre-Flight / 5%-10% Safe-Harbor Rescue Bounty, Anti-Bypass Seal). Evaluates live RPC bytecode selectors & EIP-1167/1967 proxies without needing Solidity source code.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ingravity_scanTokenRugpullAndHoneypot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoOptional Solidity (.sol) source code if auditing pre-deployment
chainIdNoEVM Chain ID (8453 Base, 42161 Arbitrum, 10 Optimism, 137 Polygon, 1 Ethereum)
tokenNameNoOptional token ticker or name
tokenAddressNoEVM ERC-20 token contract address (0x...) - no Solidity source code required

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / chainId / description
      Previous value: -"EVM Chain ID (default: 8453 for Base Mainnet)"New value: +"EVM Chain ID (8453 Base, 42161 Arbitrum, 10 Optimism, 137 Polygon, 1 Ethereum)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / tokenAddress / description
      Previous value: -"Base Mainnet ERC-20 token contract address (0x...) - no Solidity source code required"New value: +"EVM ERC-20 token contract address (0x...) - no Solidity source code required"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost/pricing ($0.50/$0.25 USDC floor plus bounty) and methodology (live RPC bytecode selectors, EIP-1167/1967 proxy handling), which are genuine behavioral signals. However, it omits what a scan returns, what happens on a safe vs. unsafe verdict, and what the 'Anti-Bypass Seal' and 'Safe-Harbor Rescue Bounty' actually mean operationally.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The purpose is stated up front, but the opening sentence is immediately cluttered with dense pricing and bounty jargon ('$0.50 / $0.25 USDC floor + 0.15% Pre-Flight / 5%-10% Safe-Harbor Rescue Bounty, Anti-Bypass Seal'). This promotional filler competes with the core message and obscures rather than clarifies.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a security-scan tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the result. It never describes what the scan returns (risk verdict, score, flags), leaving an agent unable to anticipate output. Pricing and methodology are present, but the return-value gap is significant for a scanner.

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%, so parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces tokenAddress as the primary input and explains that source code is not required, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a 'Honeypot & Rugpull Forensic Scanner by tokenAddress.' The clause 'without needing Solidity source code' distinguishes it from source-audit siblings like ingravity_auditSolidityContract, though it doesn't name them explicitly. The core purpose is clear despite marketing noise around it.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by tokenAddress' plus 'without needing Solidity source code' hints at when bytecode scanning applies versus source audits. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternatives are given. The 'Optional Solidity source code if auditing pre-deployment' note slightly muddies rather than clarifies selection.

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 toolsInspect
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