Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@base-token-factory deploy a new token named BaseCoin with symbol BSC and supply 1 million"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Deploy ERC-20 tokens on Base mainnet via the SimpleTokenFactory contract. One command, one token.
Add to your .mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"base-token-factory": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "base-token-factory-mcp"],
"env": {
"RPC_URL": "https://mainnet.base.org",
"DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY": "your-key-here"
}
}
}
}DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY is only needed for deploy_token. Read-only tools work without it.
Related MCP server: Base MCP Server
Tool | Description |
| Deploy a new ERC-20 (name, symbol, supply, decimals, recipient). Fee: 0.0005 ETH |
| Get deployment details by ID |
| List all tokens deployed by an address |
| Factory stats — fee, total deployed, treasury |
| Token details — name, symbol, supply, holder balance |
Chain: Base mainnet (chainId 8453)
Fee: 0.0005 ETH per deploy
MIT
Deploy a new ERC-20 token via the SimpleTokenFactory on Base mainnet. Requires DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY env var. Costs 0.0005 ETH deploy fee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name (e.g. 'My Token') | |
| symbol | Yes | Token symbol/ticker (e.g. 'MTK') | |
| total_supply | No | Total supply in human-readable units (e.g. '1000000' for 1M tokens) | 1000000 |
| decimals | No | Token decimals (default 18) | |
| recipient | Yes | Address that receives all minted tokens |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses env var requirement and fee, but does not mention return value (transaction hash?), asynchronous behavior, or failure modes. Adequate but missing some operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler words. Every sentence adds value (purpose, requirement, cost).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a blockchain deploy tool, description covers network, factory, env var, fee. Missing return value expectation (transaction? token address?) and fails to mention default values for parameters (though in schema). Adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No extra value for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Deploy' and the resource 'ERC-20 token via SimpleTokenFactory on Base mainnet'. It distinguishes from siblings (get_deployer_tokens, get_deployment, etc.) by being the only action-oriented tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description specifies prerequisite (DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY env var) and cost (0.0005 ETH fee), giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, though siblings are all query tools, so usage is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all token deployment IDs for a given deployer address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deployer | Yes | Deployer wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read operation via 'Get', but lacks details such as no side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. With no annotations provided, the description adequately conveys basic behavior but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the input and the result (token deployment IDs), though it could mention the output format (e.g., list) or edge cases like empty results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with parameter 'deployer' described as 'Deployer wallet address'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving baseline adequacy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'all token deployment IDs' with a specific condition 'for a given deployer address'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy_token (creation) and get_token_info (details on a single token).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like get_deployment or get_token_info. The description only states what the tool does without any context on selection criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get deployment details by ID (0-indexed). Returns token address, deployer, name, symbol, supply, and timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Deployment ID (0-indexed) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses read behavior and specific return fields, and notes 0-indexed ID. However, it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or error handling for invalid IDs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, parameter, and return fields. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention error behavior (e.g., missing ID) or pagination if applicable, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 100%, and description adds '0-indexed' which clarifies the ID format beyond the schema. This adds meaningful context to a single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets deployment details by ID, lists the specific fields returned (token address, deployer, name, symbol, supply, timestamp), and differentiates from siblings such as deploy_token (creates), get_deployer_tokens (lists by deployer), get_factory_info (factory info), and get_token_info (info by token address).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for fetching a specific deployment by ID, but does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or error cases. Adequate but lacking directive context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get SimpleTokenFactory contract info — deploy fee, total tokens deployed, treasury address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, or side effects. It only lists what is returned, leaving the agent uninformed about potential impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is clear and to the point. No unnecessary words or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned information. However, it could mention potential error conditions or permissions, though not strictly required for a basic read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (deploy fee, total tokens deployed, treasury address), which is beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool gets SimpleTokenFactory contract info and lists specific fields (deploy fee, total tokens deployed, treasury address). This distinguishes it from siblings like deploy_token or get_token_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, sibling tools have distinct purposes (deploy vs info), so usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get info about a deployed ERC-20 token — name, symbol, decimals, total supply, and optionally check a balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token contract address | |
| holder | No | Optional: address to check balance of |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if token doesn't exist), response format, or any limitations. The description is functional but minimal for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 18 words, front-loaded with purpose and specifics. Every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and optional parameter. Minor gaps: no mention of error cases or behavior when holder is missing. Still largely complete given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, describing both parameters clearly. The description adds marginal value by linking 'optionally check a balance' to the holder parameter, but does not provide additional syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves info about a deployed ERC-20 token, listing specific fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply) and optional balance check. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deploy_token and get_deployer_tokens, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying token metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deployment or get_factory_info. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0deploy_tokenget_deployer_tokensget_deploymentget_factory_infoget_token_infoScored across 5 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose: deploy_token creates, get_deployer_tokens lists deployments by address, get_deployment gets details by ID, get_factory_info shows contract-level info, and get_token_info returns token metadata. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., deploy_token, get_deployment), using lowercase with underscores. No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs.
5 tools is well-scoped for a token factory server, covering creation, querying deployments, factory info, and token info. Not too many or too few for the domain.
The tool surface covers the main operations (deploy, list, get details, factory info, token info). Minor gap: no global list of all deployments, but per-deployer listing and factory total count mitigate this.
Deploy ERC-20 tokens on Ethereum, Base, BNB, Polygon via MCP. One call = deployed contract.
Monetization and execution gateway for autonomous AI agents on Base Mainnet
Read-only on-chain intelligence for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status.
Read-only on-chain intelligence for AI agents on Base: balances, tokens, gas, tx status.