Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aztec MCP Server

Aztec MCP Server

Official
by AztecProtocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

aztec_read_example

Read the source code of a specific Aztec contract example by providing its name.

Instructions

Read the source code of an Aztec contract example. Use aztec_list_examples to find available examples.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesExample contract name (e.g., 'token', 'escrow')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read', implying a non-destructive operation, but does not mention return format, rate limits, or authentication. The description is adequate for a simple read tool.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage guidance. It could mention the return type, but it is not critical for a source code read.

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% and the parameter 'name' is described with an example. The description adds indirect context by referencing 'aztec_list_examples', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('Read the source code') and resource ('Aztec contract example'), and mentions the sibling tool 'aztec_list_examples' for discovering available examples, which helps distinguish it from other tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use 'aztec_list_examples' to find available examples before using this tool, providing clear guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude other siblings, but the context is sufficient.

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