Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

by UNI-ASYNC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

contract inspect

contract_inspect
Read-only

Inspect smart contract bytecode, EIP-1967 proxy slots, and explorer ABI metadata at a given block to verify implementation and proxy configuration.

Instructions

Observe bytecode, EIP-1967 proxy slots and explorer ABI metadata.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "contract_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
blockNumberNolatest

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0-rc.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the EIP-1967 proxy-slot resolution tells the agent proxy targets are handled, and 'explorer ABI metadata' explains the open-world/external dependency. It omits failure behavior (unverified contracts, EOAs with no bytecode) and any rate-limit or latency note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why usage and parameter detail are missing.

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?

With no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description should explain what comes back and how to interpret a missing ABI or non-proxy contract. For a moderately complex inspector it leaves the agent guessing about inputs and result shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither parameter. The blockNumber parameter, which apparently allows inspecting historical contract state, is a non-obvious capability with no explanation anywhere; only the address target is loosely implied by 'contract'.

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 ('Observe') and enumerates the exact resources returned: bytecode, EIP-1967 proxy slots, and explorer ABI metadata. That is enough to distinguish it in spirit from read_contract (execution) and contract_logs (events), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named despite a crowded sibling set (read_contract, address_overview, contract_logs). The agent must infer that inspection precedes or accompanies function calls.

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