GoTRON MCP Server

get_contract_events

Destructive

Get decoded events emitted by a smart contract via TronGrid REST API. Returns a compact summary per event. Use a small limit and paginate with fingerprint to control response size

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of results to return (1-200, default 10). Start small to avoid large responses; use fingerprint to paginate for more
`event_name`	No	Filter by specific event name (e.g. Transfer, Approval)
`fingerprint`	No	Pagination cursor from previous response meta.fingerprint — pass to fetch the next page
`max_timestamp`	No	Maximum block timestamp in milliseconds
`min_timestamp`	No	Minimum block timestamp in milliseconds
`only_confirmed`	No	Only return confirmed transactions
`contract_address`	Yes	TRON smart contract base58 address (starts with T)

Schema Changelog

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

AddedMar 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description claims this is a read-only operation ('Get decoded events'), but the annotations state readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true. This is a direct contradiction. The description provides no additional behavioral context, so it fails to clarify the tool's side effects, permissions, or impact, resulting in a severe transparency gap.

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 three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does, describing the output format, and providing a usage tip. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

Despite having a comprehensive schema, the tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain the shape of the 'compact summary.' More critically, the contradiction with annotations leaves the tool's actual behavior ambiguous. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but falls short when considering the suspicious annotation profile.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The advice on limit and fingerprint is redundant with the schema's parameter descriptions. No value is added.

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: 'Get decoded events emitted by a smart contract via TronGrid REST API.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_transaction_history or get_trc20_transfers by focusing on decoded contract events. The mention of 'compact summary' further clarifies the output nature.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to fetch decoded contract events) and gives operational guidance: 'Use a small limit and paginate with fingerprint to control response size.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusion criteria.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?