Skip to main content
Glama

GoTRON MCP Server

by sh.gotron.mcp

trigger_contract

Destructive

Call a smart contract method. Returns unsigned transaction hex for signing. 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.
fromYesCaller address (base58, starts with T)
methodNoMethod signature (e.g., 'transfer(address,uint256)'). 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"}]
fee_limitNoFee limit in whole TRX (integer), range 0-15000 (default: 100)
call_valueNoAmount to send with call in SUN (default: 0)
permission_idNoPermission ID for multi-sig transactions
contract_addressYesSmart contract address (base58, starts with T)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • 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 / fee_limit / description
      Previous value: -"Fee limit in TRX (default: 100)"New value: +"Fee limit in whole TRX (integer), range 0-15000 (default: 100)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"Caller address"New value: +"Caller address (base58, starts with T)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / method / description
      Previous value: -"Method signature (e.g., 'transfer(address,uint256)')"New value: +"Method signature (e.g., 'transfer(address,uint256)'). Required unless data is provided."
    • 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\"}]"
    • addedInput schema / properties / permission_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Permission ID for multi-sig transactions",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "from",
-  "contract_address",
-  "method",
-  "params"
-]New value: +[
+  "from",
+  "contract_address"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds the crucial behavior that it returns an unsigned transaction for signing, implying no broadcast or execution. This complements annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description should clarify the exact return structure and emphasize that the transaction is not broadcast. It only says 'unsigned transaction hex' which is suggestive but imprecise. It also omits differentiation from trigger_constant_contract, though the annotations partially compensate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description's mention of 'method+params OR data' restates the already-documented mutual exclusivity, adding no new semantics 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?

The description 'Call a smart contract method' clearly states the action and resource. Adding 'Returns unsigned transaction hex for signing' distinguishes it from read-only calls like trigger_constant_contract, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides input-mode guidance ('Provide either method+params OR data') but gives no context on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as trigger_constant_contract or transfer_trx. No when-to-use or exclusions are mentioned.

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