mcp-contract-security

scan_contract

Scan smart contract code for common vulnerabilities like reentrancy, overflow, and access control issues, and receive NEAR-specific security recommendations.

Instructions

Scan contract code for common vulnerabilities and include NEAR-specific security notes.

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": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "scan_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`language`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scan' implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not disclose whether the code is modified, what output or format is returned, limitations or false positives, or language-specific behavior beyond the mention of NEAR notes.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence says exactly what the tool does with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values and behavioral constraints to be complete. It only states the high-level purpose and the NEAR-specific notes feature, leaving the agent without guidance on expected output or limitations.

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 only indirectly clarifies that 'code' is contract source code. It does not explain the significance of the language enum values or what is expected beyond the JSON schema, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Scan'), a clear resource ('contract code'), and a defined objective ('common vulnerabilities'), plus the distinctive 'NEAR-specific security notes'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like compare_security_models and audit_checklist.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied: scan contract code for vulnerabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over compare_security_models or audit_checklist, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server