near-contract
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_contract_metadataB | Fetches contract metadata including code hash, storage usage, and detected methods/standards |
| call_view_methodA | Calls a view (read-only) method on any NEAR smart contract |
| decode_transactionA | Decodes and explains a NEAR transaction, including all actions and their effects |
| get_contract_stateA | Reads raw contract state entries, optionally filtered by key prefix |
| explain_contract_interfaceB | Analyzes a contract and provides a human-readable explanation of its purpose and main functions |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Tools are mostly distinct: metadata, state, view methods, interface explanation, and transaction decoding each target a different aspect. The slight overlap between get_contract_metadata and explain_contract_interface (both reveal methods) is mitigated by metadata being raw and explain being high-level.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_contract_metadata, call_view_method, decode_transaction, get_contract_state, explain_contract_interface. No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs.
Five tools is well-scoped for a contract inspection/analysis server. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range for a focused MCP server.
The tool surface covers the core needs for understanding NEAR contracts: metadata, raw state, view methods, interface explanation, and transaction decoding. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to simulate or estimate gas for view calls, but the current set is coherent and functional.