Skip to main content
Glama
ACaiSec

Contract Inspector MCP

by ACaiSec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Contract Inspector MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • evm-recon-mcp

      franckyo
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables reading and analyzing deployed EVM smart contracts by fetching bytecode, disassembling with invalid jump detection, reading storage, deriving Solidity storage slots, and decoding calldata on any EVM chain without an API key.
      8
      39 npm
      MIT

    • Onchain MCP Server

      0xGval
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides tools for querying onchain data across 12+ blockchain networks, including token balances, transaction analysis, and smart contract security auditing. It enables users to interact with multiple EVM-compatible chains and perform deep contract evaluations through natural language interfaces.
      1
      -

    • Web3 Assistant MCP

      LaplaceMan
      F
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables secure interaction with blockchain smart contracts across multiple chains, including ABI analysis, contract method invocation (view/nonpayable/payable), and local wallet management for Ethereum and Base networks.
      3
      1
      -
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The two tools have overlapping purposes focused on retrieving EVM contract information, which creates some ambiguity. While contract_info provides detailed data including view function results and contract_summary offers a quicker overview, an agent might struggle to choose between them for basic needs. The descriptions help clarify the depth difference, but the core domain overlap remains.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names follow a perfectly consistent pattern with clear verb_noun structure (contract_info, contract_summary). Both use snake_case and share the same prefix ('contract_'), making them predictable and easy to understand. There are no deviations or mixed conventions in the naming scheme.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a 'Contract Inspector' domain. While the tools cover information retrieval, there are obvious gaps in functionality like contract interaction, deployment, or verification. A typical contract inspection toolset would include more operations, making this count insufficient for comprehensive use.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for contract inspection. It only provides read-only information retrieval with no ability to interact with contracts (e.g., call functions with parameters, send transactions), verify source code, or manage deployments. This will cause significant agent failures when trying to perform common contract-related tasks beyond basic queries.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources