Skip to main content
Glama
OpenZeppelin

OpenZeppelin Contracts MCP Server

Official
by OpenZeppelin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Stellar Fungible

stellar-fungible

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

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
capNoThe maximum total supply of the token, in number of tokens. Leave empty for an uncapped token. Requires total supply tracking, which is then enabled automatically. Cannot be used with votes.
infoNoMetadata about the contract and author
nameYesThe name of the contract
votesNoWhether to enable vote checkpoints and delegation for governance. Cannot be used with total supply tracking or a cap.
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.
symbolYesThe short symbol for the token
premintNoThe number of tokens to premint for the deployer.
burnableNoWhether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
decimalsNoThe number of decimals used to represent token amounts. Defaults to 7.
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.
totalSupplyNoWhether to track the total supply and expose it through a total_supply function. Every mint and burn then writes the same storage entry, which prevents them from executing in parallel. Cannot be used with votes.
upgradeableNoWhether the contract can be upgraded.
explicitImplementationsNoWhether the contract should use explicit trait implementations instead of using the default ones provided by the library.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.11
    • addedInput schema / properties / cap
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The maximum total supply of the token, in number of tokens. Leave empty for an uncapped token. Requires total supply tracking, which is then enabled automatically. Cannot be used with votes.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / totalSupply
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether to track the total supply and expose it through a total_supply function. Every mint and burn then writes the same storage entry, which prevents them from executing in parallel. Cannot be used with votes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / votes / description
      Previous value: -"Whether to enable vote checkpoints and delegation for governance."New value: +"Whether to enable vote checkpoints and delegation for governance. Cannot be used with total supply tracking or a cap."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / decimals
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The number of decimals used to represent token amounts. Defaults to 7.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / explicitImplementations
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether the contract should use explicit trait implementations instead of using the default ones provided by the library.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / votes
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether to enable vote checkpoints and delegation for governance.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / access / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "const": "ownable",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "const": "roles",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / access / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "ownable",
-  "roles"
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / access / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • removedInput schema / properties / info / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is source code in a Markdown block and nothing is written to disk. That is valuable context. It does not say anything about permissions, determinism, or what happens on conflicting parameter combinations (e.g., cap + votes), though the schema handles the latter.

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 what the tool does, followed by the return behavior. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 14-parameter generator with no output schema, the description explains the return value (Markdown code block of the source) and the non-persistent behavior, and the schema covers all parameters in detail. The remaining gap is selection guidance versus the many sibling token generators, which matters given the crowded namespace.

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 100%, so every one of the 14 parameters (cap, votes, premint, access, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Make a fungible token') and names the standard (SEP-41) plus an ERC-20 analogy, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly separate itself from the many similar siblings (stellar-stablecoin, solidity-erc20, cairo-erc20, stylus-erc20, tron-trc20), but the Stellar/SEP-41 framing disambiguates enough.

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?

Usage is only implied: the SEP-41/Stellar framing tells the agent this is the choice for a Stellar fungible token, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not. Given the crowded sibling set with several token-generating tools, an explicit contrast (e.g., vs. stellar-stablecoin or other-chain ERC-20 generators) is missing.

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