Skip to main content
Glama

GoTRON MCP Server

by sh.gotron.mcp

trigger_constant_contract

Destructive

Call a read-only (view/pure) smart contract method. No transaction created, no fees. Returns decoded result. Provide either method+params OR data (pre-packed calldata).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoPre-packed ABI calldata as hex (0x prefix optional). When provided, method and params are ignored.
fromNoCaller address (base58, starts with T; optional — defaults to zero address)
methodNoMethod signature (e.g., 'totalSupply()', 'balanceOf(address)'). Required unless data is provided.
paramsNoMethod parameters as JSON array. Plain values: ["TJD...", "1000"] (types inferred from method signature). Typed objects also accepted: [{"address": "TJD..."}, {"uint256": "1000"}]
token_idNoTRC10 token ID for simulating TRC10 token transfers
call_valueNoAmount in SUN to send with call (default: 0, 1 TRX = 1000000 SUN). Required for simulating payable functions.
token_valueNoTRC10 token amount to send with call (default: 0)
contract_addressYesSmart contract address (base58, starts with T)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / call_value
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Amount in SUN to send with call (default: 0, 1 TRX = 1000000 SUN). Required for simulating payable functions.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / contract_address / description
      Previous value: -"Contract address"New value: +"Smart contract address (base58, starts with T)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / data
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pre-packed ABI calldata as hex (0x prefix optional). When provided, method and params are ignored.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"Caller address (optional, defaults to zero address)"New value: +"Caller address (base58, starts with T; optional — defaults to zero address)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / method / description
      Previous value: -"Method signature (e.g., 'totalSupply()', 'balanceOf(address)')"New value: +"Method signature (e.g., 'totalSupply()', 'balanceOf(address)'). Required unless data is provided."
    • changedInput schema / properties / params / description
      Previous value: -"Method parameters as JSON string (optional)"New value: +"Method parameters as JSON array. Plain values: [\"TJD...\", \"1000\"] (types inferred from method signature). Typed objects also accepted: [{\"address\": \"TJD...\"}, {\"uint256\": \"1000\"}]"
    • addedInput schema / properties / token_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "TRC10 token ID for simulating TRC10 token transfers",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / token_value
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "TRC10 token amount to send with call (default: 0)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "contract_address",
-  "method"
-]New value: +[
+  "contract_address"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims the tool is read-only ('view/pure', no transaction, no fees), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, directly contradicting the description. This is 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Call a read-only smart contract method') and packs useful information, with zero wasted 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?

Despite a clear purpose, the description is incomplete due to the contradiction with annotations. It doesn't address the actual destructive/write nature implied by annotations, making the overall context misleading and incomplete for an agent relying on it.

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 schema documents all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond the 'method+params OR data' relationship, which is already implied by the data parameter's description. The description does not add significant new meaning.

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 verb (call), resource (smart contract method), and scope (read-only view/pure), distinguishing it from the sibling write tool trigger_contract. The phrase 'No transaction created, no fees' reinforces its read-only 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 tells users to provide either method+params OR data, and notes that it's a read-only call with no fees. It implies when to use this tool compared to a write-like contract call, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative like trigger_contract.

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