Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aztec MCP Server

Aztec MCP Server

Official
by AztecProtocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

aztec_list_examples

Find Aztec contract examples by filtering categories like token, NFT, or DeFi to get contract names and paths.

Instructions

List available Aztec contract examples. Returns contract names and paths.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aztec_list_examples"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoFilter by category. Examples: token, nft, defi, escrow, crowdfund

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates it returns names and paths, but lacks details on behaviors like pagination, ordering, or potential effects. It is adequate for a simple list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is clear and efficient. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the action, but it is concise and contains no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: what it does and what it returns. It is complete for basic usage.

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% for the single parameter 'category', which has a description. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'list', the resource 'Aztec contract examples', and what it returns ('contract names and paths'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like aztec_read_example which reads a specific example.

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 implies usage for listing examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aztec_search_code or aztec_read_example. No guidance on when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools