Skip to main content
Glama
OpenZeppelin

OpenZeppelin Contracts MCP Server

Official
by OpenZeppelin

Cairo ERC721

cairo-erc721

Generate ERC-721 non-fungible token contract source code with configurable features like minting, burning, pausing, royalties, and access control. Returns the code as Markdown.

Instructions

Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-721 standard.

Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
infoNoMetadata about the contract and author
nameYesThe name of the contract
votesNoWhether to keep track of individual units for voting in on-chain governance. Voting durations can be expressed as block numbers or timestamps.
accessNo
macrosNoThe macros to use for the contract.
symbolYesThe short symbol for the token
appNameNoRequired when votes is enabled, for hashing and signing typed structured data. Name for domain separator implementing SNIP12Metadata trait. Prevents two applications from producing the same hash.
baseUriNoA base uri for the non-fungible token.
wrapperNoWhether to include ERC721Wrapper functionality for wrapping an underlying ERC721.
burnableNoWhether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
mintableNoWhether privileged accounts will be able to create more supply or emit more tokens
pausableNoWhether privileged accounts will be able to pause specifically marked functionality. Useful for emergency response.
appVersionNoRequired when votes is enabled, for hashing and signing typed structured data. Version for domain separator implementing SNIP12Metadata trait. Prevents two versions of the same application from producing the same hash.
enumerableNoWhether to allow on-chain enumeration of all tokens or those owned by an account. Increases gas cost of transfers.
uriStorageNoAllows updating token URIs for individual token IDs.
consecutiveNoEnables gas-efficient batch minting of consecutive token IDs during construction (ERC-2309). The contract owner must call `mint_consecutive` from the constructor to issue the initial batch. Cannot be combined with enumerable.
royaltyInfoNoProvides information for how much royalty is owed and to whom, based on a sale price. Follows ERC-2981 standard.
upgradeableNoWhether the smart contract is upgradeable.
Install Server

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does this well by disclosing the output format ('formatted in a Markdown code block') and explicitly stating 'Does not write to disk,' which clarifies the tool is a non-persistent source-code generator. It does not cover behavior on invalid or conflicting parameters, but the core side-effect profile is transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler: it front-loads the purpose, then states the return format and side-effect behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 code-generation tool with a rich input schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: return format and lack of disk writes. It does not explicitly mention the target chain/language in the description, but the tool name and title cover that context. All functional parameters are already explained in the schema.

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 description coverage is high (94%), so the input schema already provides strong parameter-level meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-721 standard,' and clarifies that it returns contract source code. It distinguishes the tool from ERC-20/ERC-1155 siblings by naming the standard, though it does not explicitly state 'Cairo' or reference sibling Solidity/Stylus ERC-721 tools, leaving some differentiation to the tool title/name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as solidity-erc721, stylus-erc721, or cairo-erc1155. No conditions, exclusions, or explicit alternative selection hints are provided; usage is only implied by the tool name and the ERC-721 standard mention.

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

Other Tools

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/OpenZeppelin/contracts-wizard'

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