Skip to main content
Glama
Baneado98

calldata-guardian

by Baneado98
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve distinctly different purposes: decode_calldata provides basic parameter decoding, while preview_transaction offers a comprehensive risk assessment with live context. The descriptions clearly differentiate them, leaving no ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (decode_calldata and preview_transaction), adhering to a predictable naming convention.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the set is slightly thin, but it covers the core functionality of calldata decoding and transaction preview without unnecessary bloat, making it appropriate for its focused scope.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the essential operations: basic decoding for known selectors and a full transaction preview with risk assessment and live on-chain context. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a calldata guardian.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions that decoding works for known supply-chain-relevant selectors, implying limitations. However, it does not disclose error handling, whether it validates calldata, or if it is state-changing (assumed read-only). Adequate but could be more specific.

    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 verb+resource, no fluff. Each sentence earns its place.

    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?

    No output schema, but description specifies return (function name, decoded args) and lists selectors. Adequate for the tool's simplicity, though could mention return format.

    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% so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining purpose and listing known selectors, but does not provide additional details beyond schema for the three parameters.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool decodes EVM calldata into function name and parameters, specifying verb (decode), resource (calldata), and output. It distinguishes from sibling preview_transaction by noting risk context.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly tells when to use this tool (decoding calldata) and when to use the sibling (preview_transaction for risk context). Provides clear guidance on selecting between tools.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states it is read-only, never signs or broadcasts, and describes what it checks (dangerous patterns) and returns (verdict + human-readable list). It also mentions live on-chain context reading.

    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 coherent paragraph that starts with main purpose, then details checks, and ends with usage guidance. It is informative but slightly long; however, every sentence adds value and is well-structured.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    No output schema exists, so description must explain return values. It does so by stating it returns a SAFE/REVIEW/DANGER verdict with a plain-English list. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: lists supported chains for the chain parameter, explains to as contract/recipient, data as calldata (optional for pure transfer), and value in wei. This enhances understanding.

    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 decodes and explains an EVM transaction before signing, returning a verdict with plain-English list. It specifies inputs (chain, to, data, value) and distinguishes from sibling decode_calldata by focusing on pre-signing safety analysis.

    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 says 'Use this whenever an agent is about to sign or relay a transaction it didn't fully construct.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

calldata-guardian MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

calldata-guardian MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Baneado98/calldata-guardian'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server