Skip to main content
Glama

DERO MCP Server

by io.github.DHEBP

tela_inspect

Read-only

Composite: fetch a TELA contract by SCID (DERO.GetSC code + variables) and parse it as either a TELA-INDEX-1 app manifest or a TELA-DOC-1 file contract, auto-detecting which standard it is from the stored keys. TELA is DERO's on-chain web-app platform: an INDEX is the app manifest (like package.json) and DOCs are the individual files (HTML/CSS/JS) stored on chain.

When to call: as the FIRST step whenever a user references a TELA SCID, a .tela dURL app, or asks "what is this TELA contract/app", "what files does this TELA app have", or "is this a TELA INDEX or DOC". PREFER this over dero_get_sc + manual parsing or explain_smart_contract: explain_smart_contract treats TELA contracts as generic DVM and its surface CAPS stored keys at 50, which silently drops DOCn entries on large manifests — tela_inspect reads the raw stringkeys directly so it enumerates ALL DOC references, and it decodes the TELA header/mods/commit schema the generic tool does not understand.

Input Requirements:

  • scid is REQUIRED. Must be 64 hex chars (the TELA contract id).

  • topoheight is OPTIONAL. Provide to inspect at a specific topo height; omit for the latest committed state.

Output: a discriminated union on kind. tela_index → { scid, topoheight, kind, index: { name, description, icon, durl, mods[], docs:[{position, key, scid, is_entrypoint, malformed}], doc_count, commit, version_history[], current_commit_hash, owner, updateable:'unknown', updateable_note, parse_notes[] }, narrative, related_docs }. tela_doc → { ..., doc: { filename, doc_type, sub_dir, durl, signature, content_embedded, code_size_bytes, immutable }, narrative, related_docs }. not_tela → { ..., kind:'not_tela', reason, observed:{ stringkey_sample[], stringkeys_total, has_code, markers[] }, narrative } — returned (NOT an error) when the SCID is unknown or lacks TELA markers. Updateability cannot be derived from chain state (ringsize is not in GetSC) so it is honestly reported as 'unknown'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scidYes64-char hex Smart Contract ID of a TELA-INDEX-1 or TELA-DOC-1 contract
topoheightNoOptional topo height; omit for the latest committed state

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the auto-detection logic, the possibility of a 'not_tela' return for non-TELA contracts, and the caveat that updateability cannot be derived from chain state. This provides full transparency about expected behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 description is excessively verbose and repetitive. The output format is described in full detail twice (once in the main description and again in the 'Output' section), and the rationale for preferring this tool is restated multiple times. While organized into sections, the redundancy inflates length without adding value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, usage criteria, input requirements, detailed output structure (including the discriminated union variants), and edge cases like 'not_tela'. It also provides the necessary background on TELA standards and why this tool is superior to generic alternatives, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema already cover the meaning and constraints (64-char hex, topoheight optional for latest state). The tool description repeats this information without adding new insight, though it does reinforce the context of TELA contract types. Given high schema coverage, this is adequate but not additive beyond the schema.

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 that the tool fetches and parses TELA contracts, auto-detecting between INDEX and DOC types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (dero_get_sc, explain_smart_contract) by explaining their limitations, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit when-to-use instructions (first step for TELA SCIDs, .tela dURL apps, specific user queries) and directly states preference over alternatives. It also includes input requirements (scid required, topoheight optional) and clarifies the 'not_tela' fallback case.

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

All DERO MCP Server 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to call it and how it differs from similar tools. Composite tools are well-defined, overlapping concerns are minimized.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a general pattern: 'dero_' for core daemon RPC wrappers, 'tela_' for TELA-specific composites, and descriptive names for other composites. While mostly consistent, there are exceptions like 'audit_chain_artifact_claim' and 'dero_durl_to_scid' breaking the pattern slightly.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server is comprehensive but slightly heavy. However, each tool serves a specific need in the DERO ecosystem, covering chain queries, docs, TELA, and composite analyses. The count is justifiable given the domain breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core chain operations, documentation, TELA app lifecycle, and common analytical tasks. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of wallet interaction tools or transaction submission, but these are outside the apparent read-only/analysis scope.

Resources