Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
solflow-mcp

solflow-mcp

by fuzious
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

list_entry_points

Read-onlyIdempotent

List externally callable Solidity entry points grouped by contract and split into mutating vs read-only, with modifiers, call-tree depth, and unresolved calls for call-flow analysis.

Instructions

List every externally callable entry point, grouped by contract and split into mutating vs read-only, with modifiers, call-tree depth, node count and number of unresolved calls. Use the printed names with get_flow.

Args:
    repo_path: Project root.
    contract: Only this contract (exact name).
    query: Case-insensitive substring filter on "Contract.fn(types)".
    mutating_only: Hide view/pure entry points.
    max_chars: Output size cap.

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": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "list_entry_points"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
contractNo
max_charsNo
repo_pathYes
mutating_onlyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that results are grouped by contract and partitioned into mutating vs read-only, what metrics accompany each entry, and that output volume is bounded by max_chars. It does not say how truncation is applied when the cap is hit, which is the main remaining gap.

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 output shape and the handoff to get_flow are front-loaded in the first two lines, followed by a compact Args block with one line per parameter. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name, and every sentence carries usable 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe the return structure (grouped by contract, mutating/read-only split, per-entry metrics) and the size cap. For a read-only listing tool this is nearly sufficient; only truncation behavior and error/empty-result handling are left implicit.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does define all five parameters, including the important detail that query matches the 'Contract.fn(types)' signature string case-insensitively and that mutating_only hides view/pure entry points. It omits the max_chars default (60000) and the default/null behavior of contract and query, which are only visible in the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List every externally callable entry point') and names the scope/clustering ('grouped by contract and split into mutating vs read-only'). It also enumerates the extra per-entry data returned (modifiers, call-tree depth, node count, unresolved calls), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_unresolved and get_flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear operational context by stating 'Use the printed names with get_flow', which establishes the discovery-to-lookup workflow and ties this tool to a named sibling. It also explains filter intent (contract for exact-name narrowing, query for substring narrowing). It does not state explicit exclusions or when to prefer get_flow directly, so it stops short of a 5.

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