Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenZeppelin Contracts MCP Server

OpenZeppelin Contracts MCP Server

Official
by OpenZeppelin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

TRON TRC20

tron-trc20

Generate a TRC-20 fungible token contract for the TRON Virtual Machine and return its source code, with configurable minting, burning, pausing, and access control.

Instructions

Make a fungible token per the TRC-20 standard, targeting the TRON Virtual Machine.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
infoNoMetadata about the contract and author
nameYesThe name of the contract
votesNoWhether to keep track of historical balances for voting in on-chain governance. Voting durations can be expressed as block numbers or timestamps.
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. Managed enables a central contract to define a policy that allows certain callers to access certain functions.
permitNoWhether without paying gas, token holders will be able to allow third parties to transfer from their account.
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
callbackNoWhether to include support for code execution after transfers and approvals on recipient contracts in a single transaction.
decimalsNoThe number of decimals used to represent token amounts. Defaults to 18.
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.
flashmintNoWhether to include built-in flash loans to allow lending tokens without requiring collateral as long as they're returned in the same transaction.
upgradeableNoWhether the smart contract is upgradeable. Transparent uses more complex proxy with higher overhead, requires less changes in your contract. Can also be used with beacons. UUPS uses simpler proxy with less overhead, requires including extra code in your contract. Allows flexibility for authorizing upgrades.
chainlinkAceNoExternal policy integration is not supported on TRON.
premintChainIdNoThe chain ID of the network on which to premint tokens.
namespacePrefixNoThe prefix for ERC-7201 namespace identifiers. It should be derived from the project name or a unique naming convention specific to the project. Used only if the contract includes storage variables and upgradeability is enabled. Default is "myProject".
crossChainBridgingNoBridge mode: custom, ERC-7786 native, or Superchain. Availability depends on the selected network.
crossChainLinkAllowOverrideNoWhether to allow replacing a crosschain link that has already been registered. Only used if crossChainBridging is set to "erc7786native".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.10
    • addedInput schema / properties / chainlinkAce
      Added value: +{
+  "const": false,
+  "description": "External policy integration is not supported on TRON.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / crossChainBridging / description
      Previous value: -"Whether to allow authorized bridge contracts to mint and burn tokens for crosschain transfers. Options are to use custom bridges on any chain, to embed an ERC-7786 based bridge directly in the token contract, or to use the SuperchainERC20 standard with the predeployed SuperchainTokenBridge. The SuperchainERC20 feature is only available on chains in the Superchain, and requires deploying your contract to the same address on every chain in the Superchain."New value: +"Bridge mode: custom, ERC-7786 native, or Superchain. Availability depends on the selected network."
  2. Addedv1.0.6

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does supply two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the output is source code in a Markdown code block and nothing is written to disk (i.e., non-destructive). It stops short of describing validation, compilation, or failure behavior, but the side-effect profile is disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the capability stated first and the output/persistence behavior second. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries information.

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 19-parameter generator with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: the return format and the fact that no file is written. What remains missing (error handling, whether the code is compilable/deployable as-is) is minor.

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% across all 19 parameters, so the schema fully documents names, defaults, enums, and even the TRON-specific caveat on chainlinkAce. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the baseline, which is appropriate given the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a fungible token'), names the exact standard (TRC-20) and target VM (TRON Virtual Machine). This cleanly separates it from solidity-erc20, tron-trc721, and tron-trc1155 without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 standard-and-VM framing implies when to pick this over the ERC-20 or Cairo siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. Usage is left to inference from the naming.

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