StellarMCP

stellar_soroban_deploy

Upload a compiled WASM file and deploy a Soroban smart contract instance on Stellar, returning the contract ID and transaction hashes.

Instructions

Upload WASM and deploy a Soroban smart contract instance. Returns wasmHash, contractId, and transaction hashes.

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": {
      "wasmFilePath": "<wasmFilePath>",
      "sourceAccount": "<sourceAccount>"
    },
    "name": "stellar_soroban_deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wasmFilePath`	Yes	Absolute or relative path to the compiled .wasm file
`sourceAccount`	Yes	Source account public key (G...) to deploy from
`salt`	No	32-byte hex salt for deterministic contract ID. Random if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the two-step action (upload and deploy) and the return values, but it does not disclose that deployment is an on-chain write operation that likely requires fees, funded accounts, or other prerequisites. The description could more transparently note the mutating and potentially irreversible nature of the operation.

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 is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and immediately states key return values. There is no filler or repeated schema information, making it maximally concise and scannable.

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?

The description gives a solid high-level overview and names the return values, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, for a nontrivial deployment operation, it omits important context such as account prerequisites, fee implications, network requirements, and the effect of the optional salt. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke this correctly.

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 all three parameters are already described in the input schema, including the random salt behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Upload WASM and deploy a Soroban smart contract instance.' It also lists the key return values, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like stellar_soroban_invoke or stellar_soroban_simulate. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the combination of the tool name and the action described makes its usage context reasonably clear compared to sibling tools, so the usage guideline is implied rather than missing.

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