Skip to main content
Glama
RockYuan

MCP Smart Contract Analyst

by RockYuan
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one analyzes unverified contracts and the other analyzes verified contracts on the Monad testnet. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as the verification status is a binary distinction that cleanly separates their use cases.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'analyze' as the verb and descriptive adjectives ('unverified', 'verified') modifying the noun 'contract'. The naming is perfectly uniform and predictable across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Smart Contract Analyst' domain. While the tools cover analysis of both verified and unverified contracts, the scope suggests potential for more analytical operations (e.g., security checks, gas estimation, function analysis), making the current count insufficient for comprehensive analysis.

    Completeness2/5

    The server is severely incomplete for smart contract analysis. It only provides basic analysis based on verification status, missing essential operations like vulnerability scanning, gas optimization suggestions, code complexity metrics, or interaction with contract functions. This limited surface will likely cause agent failures when deeper analysis is required.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('analyze') but doesn't describe what analysis entails, whether it's read-only or has side effects, what permissions or authentication might be needed, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of contract analysis, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' means in practice, what information is returned, or how to interpret results. For a tool that likely involves technical blockchain operations, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.

    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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions 'address' generally but doesn't elaborate on format, validation, or semantic meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

    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 action ('analyze') and target resource ('unverified contract from an address on the Monad testnet'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'analyze-verified-contract' beyond the 'unverified' qualifier, which is implied but not stated as a distinguishing factor.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'unverified contract' but doesn't explain what constitutes unverified vs. verified, when to choose this over 'analyze-verified-contract', or any prerequisites for usage. This leaves the agent without contextual decision-making criteria.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('analyze') but doesn't explain what analysis entails (e.g., returns contract code, metadata, or insights), potential errors (e.g., invalid addresses), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., contract details, vulnerabilities) or handle complexities like error cases, which are crucial for a tool interacting with blockchain data. This falls short of providing enough context for effective use.

    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%, with the single parameter 'address' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format constraints or examples), so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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?

    The description clearly states the action ('analyze') and resource ('verified contract from an address on the Monad testnet'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'analyze-unverified-contract' beyond the 'verified' qualifier, which is implied but not contrasted directly.

    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, such as its sibling 'analyze-unverified-contract'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., what constitutes a 'verified' contract) or exclusions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-contract-analyst MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-contract-analyst MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/RockYuan/mcp-contract-analyst'

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