Skip to main content
Glama
OpenZeppelin

OpenZeppelin Contracts MCP Server

Official
by OpenZeppelin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Stellar Governor

stellar-governor

Make a governor contract for on-chain governance using token-based voting.

Instructions

Make a governor contract for on-chain governance using token-based voting.

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
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.
quorumNoMinimum number of votes required for a proposal to pass, default is 500.
versionNoThe semantic version label returned by the governor contract.
timelockNoWhether to add a timelock mechanism that enforces a delay between proposal queuing and execution.
upgradeableNoWhether the contract can be upgraded.
votingDelayNoNumber of ledgers between proposal creation and voting start (17,000 ledgers are approx. 1 day).
votingPeriodNoNumber of ledgers during which voting remains open (120,000 ledgers are approx. 1 week). Must be greater than 0.
proposalThresholdNoMinimum voting power required for creating a proposal, default is 100.
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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.11
    • changedInput schema / properties / votingPeriod / description
      Previous value: -"Number of ledgers during which voting remains open (120,000 ledgers are approx. 1 week)."New value: +"Number of ledgers during which voting remains open (120,000 ledgers are approx. 1 week). Must be greater than 0."
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns Markdown-formatted source code and does not write to disk, but it does not describe validation behavior, whether the generated code compiles, or other side-effect details.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the important return and no-disk-write behavior.

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 an 11-parameter generator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the return value and explicitly states that it does not write to disk. It could be more complete by distinguishing Stellar-specific behavior from other governor siblings, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 the input schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: making a governor contract for on-chain governance using token-based voting. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling governor generators such as solidity-governor, tron-governor, or cairo-governor.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus the many sibling governor tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage context is that it returns source code and does not write to disk.

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