mcp-contract-security
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 |
|---|---|
| scan_contractB | Scan contract code for common vulnerabilities and include NEAR-specific security notes. |
| compare_security_modelsB | Compare NEAR vs Ethereum security architecture and risk profile. |
| audit_checklistB | Return a practical smart contract security checklist with NEAR-specific items. |
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 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning contracts for vulnerabilities, comparing architectures, and providing checklists. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (scan_contract, compare_security_models), while audit_checklist is more of a noun phrase. The pattern is mostly predictable and readable, with only a minor deviation.
Three tools is a reasonable scope for a focused contract security server. It is slightly small but each tool serves a distinct, justified function within the domain.
The toolset covers scanning, comparative analysis, and actionable guidance, which gives agents a solid workflow. It lacks deeper features like detailed report generation or code fixes, but the core security assessment use case is well covered.