Skip to main content
Glama
OpenZeppelin

OpenZeppelin Contracts MCP Server

Official
by OpenZeppelin

stellar-fungible

Generate smart contract source code for Stellar-compatible fungible tokens (SEP-41) with customizable features like burnable, pausable, mintable, and upgradeable options.

Instructions

Make a fungible token per the Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41, similar to ERC-20.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the contract
symbolYesThe short symbol for the token
burnableNoWhether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
pausableNoWhether privileged accounts will be able to pause specifically marked functionality. Useful for emergency response.
premintNoThe number of tokens to premint for the deployer.
mintableNoWhether privileged accounts will be able to create more supply or emit more tokens
accessNoThe type of access control to provision. Ownable is a simple mechanism with a single account authorized for all privileged actions. Roles is a flexible mechanism with a separate role for each privileged action. A role can have many authorized accounts.
upgradeableNoWhether the contract can be upgraded.
infoNoMetadata about the contract and author

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that receives tool input parameters, constructs FungibleOptions, calls fungible.print to generate Rust code, and returns it as text content.
    async ({ name, symbol, burnable, pausable, premint, mintable, upgradeable, access, info }) => {
      const opts: FungibleOptions = {
        name,
        symbol,
        burnable,
        pausable,
        premint,
        mintable,
        upgradeable,
        access,
        info,
      };
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: safePrintRustCodeBlock(() => fungible.print(opts)),
          },
        ],
      };
    },
  • Zod schema defining the input shape for the stellar-fungible tool, including fields like name, symbol, burnable, etc.
    export const fungibleSchema = {
      name: z.string().describe(commonDescriptions.name),
      symbol: z.string().describe(commonDescriptions.symbol),
      burnable: z.boolean().optional().describe(commonDescriptions.burnable),
      pausable: z.boolean().optional().describe(commonDescriptions.pausable),
      premint: z.string().optional().describe(stellarFungibleDescriptions.premint),
      mintable: z.boolean().optional().describe(commonDescriptions.mintable),
      ...commonSchema,
    } as const satisfies z.ZodRawShape;
  • The registration function for the 'stellar-fungible' tool, called by server.tool with name, prompt, schema, and handler.
    export function registerStellarFungible(server: McpServer): RegisteredTool {
      return server.tool(
        'stellar-fungible',
        makeDetailedPrompt(stellarPrompts.Fungible),
        fungibleSchema,
        async ({ name, symbol, burnable, pausable, premint, mintable, upgradeable, access, info }) => {
          const opts: FungibleOptions = {
            name,
            symbol,
            burnable,
            pausable,
            premint,
            mintable,
            upgradeable,
            access,
            info,
          };
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: 'text',
                text: safePrintRustCodeBlock(() => fungible.print(opts)),
              },
            ],
          };
        },
      );
    }
Behavior3/5

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 adds some context: it describes the output ('Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block') and a limitation ('Does not write to disk'), which clarifies that this is a generation tool without side effects. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, performance, or security implications, leaving gaps for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 highly concise and well-structured with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about output format and disk writing. There is no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and key behavioral traits (output format and no disk writing), but lacks details on error cases, performance, or how to use the generated code. For a code generation tool with multiple parameters, more context on usage or integration would be beneficial, but it's adequate as a minimum viable description.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies parameters through 'Make a fungible token,' but doesn't detail any semantics like default values or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Make a fungible token per the Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41, similar to ERC-20.' It specifies the action (make/create), the resource (fungible token), and the standards (SEP-41, ERC-20). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stellar-non-fungible' or 'stellar-stablecoin' beyond the 'fungible' term, which is why it's not a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'stellar-non-fungible' for non-fungible tokens or 'stellar-stablecoin' for stablecoins, nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implicit context is the standard compatibility, but this lacks explicit alternatives or decision criteria.

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

Install Server

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