Skip to main content
Glama

GoTRON MCP Server

by sh.gotron.mcp

estimate_energy

Destructive

Estimate energy cost for a smart contract call. Requires a full node with vm.supportConstant=true and vm.estimateEnergy=true; falls back to secondary node if primary does not support it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYesCaller address (base58, starts with T)
methodYesContract method signature (e.g., 'transfer(address,uint256)')
paramsYesMethod parameters as JSON array. Plain values: ["TJD...", "1000"] (types inferred from method signature). Typed objects also accepted: [{"address": "TJD..."}, {"uint256": "1000"}]
contract_addressYesSmart contract address (base58, starts with T)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / contract_address / description
      Previous value: -"Contract address"New value: +"Smart contract address (base58, starts with T)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"Caller address"New value: +"Caller address (base58, starts with T)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / params / description
      Previous value: -"Method parameters as JSON string"New value: +"Method parameters as JSON array. Plain values: [\"TJD...\", \"1000\"] (types inferred from method signature). Typed objects also accepted: [{\"address\": \"TJD...\"}, {\"uint256\": \"1000\"}]"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, directly contradicting the description's 'estimate' operation which implies no state change. The description adds no clarification of side effects or safety profile, resulting in a serious inconsistency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause provides useful context (node requirements, fallback). No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the estimate returns (units, format). It fails to do so, and the contradiction between the read-only nature and destructiveHint annotation leaves the agent uncertain about side effects. The fallback behavior is a positive, but overall completeness is inadequate.

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 all four parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('energy cost for a smart contract call'). It distinguishes from sibling 'estimate_trc20_energy' by not limiting to TRC20.

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 provides technical prerequisites (full node capabilities) and fallback behavior, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The use case is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

All GoTRON 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping responsibilities (e.g., get_energy_prices/get_bandwidth_prices/get_chain_parameters, get_pending_transactions/get_pending_by_address/is_transaction_pending, and analyze_account vs get_account plus its resource/permission variants). These create boundary confusion despite clear descriptions, and with 43 tools an agent will likely select the wrong one occasionally.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_account, transfer_trx, delegate_resource, unfreeze_balance). Even the few multi-word verbs (estimate_energy, trigger_constant_contract) remain predictable. No camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count2/5

With 43 tools, the server is heavy. While the TRON domain is broad, the tool surface is bloated with many near-synonyms and split functionalities that could be consolidated. The rubric flags 25+ tools as too many; 43 clearly exceeds that.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of read and transaction-building operations, including staking, governance, contracts, and TRC20. However, it lacks critical lifecycle steps: there is no sign or broadcast tool, and no ability to deploy contracts or create accounts. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns unsigned transactions.

Resources