The Monad MCP Server allows interaction with the Monad testnet, providing tools for token management, smart contract deployment, NFT queries, and blockchain monitoring.
Check MON Balances: Retrieve the MON token balance for a specific account using get-mon-balance.
Send MON Transactions: Transfer MON tokens between accounts using send-mon-transaction.
Deploy Smart Contracts: Deploy contracts to the Monad testnet using deploy-mon-contract.
Monitor Contract Events: Watch for events emitted by a specific contract using watch-contract-events.
Query NFT Information: Retrieve details about Non-Fungible Tokens using query-mon-nft.
Fetch Block Data: Get the latest block with get-latest-block or a specific block by number with get-block-by-number.
Manages environment variables needed for secure configuration of the Monad MCP server
Supports cloning the repository to set up the Monad MCP server
Hosts the repository for the Monad MCP server code
Provides a runtime environment for the Monad MCP server to interact with the Monad testnet
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., "@Monad MCP Server check my MON token balance"
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.
This MCP (Model Context Protocol) server is designed to interact with the Monad testnet. It provides a suite of tools and capabilities for developers to engage with the Monad blockchain, including checking MON token balances, sending transactions, deploying smart contracts, and monitoring blockchain events.
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a standardized interface that enables AI models to securely and effectively interact with external tools, services, and data sources. This server implements MCP to expose Monad blockchain functionalities to compatible AI agents or applications.
Related MCP server: Solana MCP Server
The project is organized as follows:
monad-mcp-server/
├── .env.example # Example environment variables file
├── .gitignore # Specifies intentionally untracked files that Git should ignore
├── LICENSE # Project's software license
├── README.md # This file, providing an overview and instructions
├── package-lock.json # Records the exact versions of dependencies
├── package.json # Lists project dependencies and scripts
├── pnpm-lock.yaml # PNPM lockfile for dependency resolution
├── src/ # Source code directory
│ ├── config/ # Configuration files
│ │ └── server.ts # Server setup and Viem client initialization
│ ├── index.ts # Main entry point of the application
│ └── tools/ # MCP tools for interacting with Monad
│ ├── block/ # Tools related to blockchain blocks (e.g., get-latest-block)
│ ├── contract/ # Tools for smart contract interactions (e.g., deploy, watch events)
│ ├── nft/ # Tools for Non-Fungible Tokens (e.g., query-mon-nft)
│ └── wallet/ # Tools for wallet operations (e.g., get balance, send transactions)
└── tsconfig.json # TypeScript compiler configurationsrc/index.ts: This is the main entry point for the server. It initializes the MCP server instance and registers all available tools (wallet, contract, NFT, block).
src/config/server.ts: This file handles the core server configuration. It sets up the McpServer instance with its name, version, and a list of capabilities. It also initializes the Viem public client for interacting with the Monad testnet and provides a function to create a Viem wallet client using a private key from environment variables. The server uses StdioServerTransport for communication.
src/tools/: This directory contains the implementations for various MCP tools. Each subdirectory typically focuses on a specific aspect of Monad interaction:
walletProvider: Manages MON token balances and transactions.
contractProvider: Handles smart contract deployment and event watching.
nftProvider: Provides functionality for querying NFTs on the Monad network.
blockProvider: Offers tools to retrieve block information.
Before you begin, ensure you have the following installed:
Node.js (version 16 or later)
A Node.js package manager: npm, yarn, or pnpm (this project uses pnpm in its examples)
Claude Desktop (or any MCP-compatible client) to interact with the server.
This project uses environment variables to manage sensitive information, primarily your Monad account's private key.
Copy the example file: Create a copy of .env.example and rename it to .env.
cp .env.example .envEdit .env: Open the newly created .env file in a text editor.
Set PRIVATE_KEY: Fill in the PRIVATE_KEY variable with your Monad account's private key. This key is necessary for operations like sending transactions or deploying contracts.
PRIVATE_KEY="0xyourprivatekeyhere"Important: Ensure your private key starts with 0x.
Security: Never commit your .env file to a Git repository. The .gitignore file is already configured to prevent this, but always be mindful of protecting your private keys.
Follow these steps to set up and run the Monad MCP server:
Clone the Repository:
If you haven't already, clone the project from GitHub:
git clone https://github.com/lispking/monad-mcp-server.git
cd monad-mcp-serverInstall Dependencies:
Use pnpm (or your preferred package manager) to install the project dependencies listed in package.json:
pnpm installBuild the Project:
The server is written in TypeScript and needs to be compiled into JavaScript. Run the build script:
pnpm buildThis command will use tsc (the TypeScript compiler) as defined in package.json to compile the source files from the src directory into the build directory.
The server is now built and ready to be used by an MCP client.
As defined in src/config/server.ts, the server exposes the following capabilities:
get-mon-balance: Retrieve the MON token balance for an account.
send-mon-transaction: Send MON tokens from one account to another.
deploy-mon-contract: Deploy a smart contract to the Monad testnet.
watch-contract-events: Monitor and report events emitted by a specific smart contract.
query-mon-nft: Query information about Non-Fungible Tokens on the Monad network.
get-latest-block: Fetch details of the most recent block on the Monad testnet.
get-block-by-number: Retrieve a specific block by its block number.
To use this server with an MCP-compatible client (like Claude Desktop), you'll need to add its configuration to the client's settings. The exact method may vary depending on the client, but typically involves specifying how to run the server.
Here's an example configuration snippet:
{
"mcpServers": {
// ... other server configurations ...
"monad-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/absolute/path/to/your/project/monad-mcp-server/build/index.js"
],
"env": {
"PRIVATE_KEY": "<your_monad_private_key_if_not_using_dotenv_or_to_override>"
}
}
// ... other server configurations ...
}
}Explanation of Configuration Fields:
"monad-mcp": A unique name you assign to this server configuration within your client.
"command": "node": Specifies that the server is a Node.js application.
"args": An array of arguments to pass to the node command.
The first argument is the path to the compiled entry point of the server: /absolute/path/to/your/project/monad-mcp-server/build/index.js. Replace /absolute/path/to/your/project/ with the actual absolute path to where you cloned the monad-mcp-server repository.
"env": An object to set environment variables for the server process.
"PRIVATE_KEY": You can set your private key here. However, it's generally recommended to use the .env file for better security. If set here, it might override the value in .env depending on the client's behavior and the server's environment variable loading order.
Note: Ensure the path in "args" is correct and points to the build/index.js file within your project directory.
For more detailed information on the technologies used and concepts involved, refer to the following official documentation:
Viem Documentation (Viem is the Ethereum/Monad client library used in this project)
This comprehensive README should provide a solid understanding of the Monad MCP Server, its setup, and usage.
Deploy a smart contract on Monad testnet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abi | Yes | Contract ABI | |
| bytecode | Yes | Contract bytecode | |
| constructorArgs | No | Constructor arguments |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'testnet' which implies non-production use, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether deployment is irreversible, requires gas fees, has rate limits, or returns a contract address. For a deployment tool, this is a significant gap.
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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward deployment tool and front-loads the essential action and target environment.
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 contract deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deployment (e.g., returns contract address, transaction hash), error conditions, or environmental constraints. Given the complexity of smart contract deployment, more context is needed.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, relationship between parameters). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('deploy') and resource ('smart contract on Monad testnet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'send-mon-transaction' which might also involve contract interactions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing ABI/bytecode), compare to other deployment methods, or specify use cases like testing vs production. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a block by number on Monad testnet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | The block number to retrieve |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a block but omits critical details such as whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), error handling for invalid block numbers, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place with zero waste.
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?
Given the complexity of blockchain operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., block structure), error cases, network-specific behaviors, or how it fits within the sibling toolset. For a tool with such sparse structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'number' parameter documented as 'The block number to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format details (e.g., integer vs. hex) or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 resource ('a block by number'), specifying the target network ('on Monad testnet'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-latest-block' by focusing on specific block numbers rather than the latest. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'query-mon-nft' or 'watch-contract-events', which is why it's a 4 rather than a 5.
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 provides minimal guidance, implying usage when a specific block number is known on the Monad testnet. It lacks explicit when-to-use scenarios, alternatives (e.g., using 'get-latest-block' for recent blocks), or exclusions (e.g., not for querying NFTs). No context on prerequisites or limitations is given, making it basic but not entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the latest block on Monad testnet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, network behavior, error responses, or what 'latest' means in practical terms (e.g., is it cached, real-time, etc.). For a blockchain query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
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?
Given that this is a blockchain query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the block data will be returned in, what fields to expect, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably returns complex blockchain data, more context about the response would be helpful despite the lack of output schema.
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%. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It could theoretically mention that no parameters are required, but this is adequately covered by the structured schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is appropriately high.
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 resource ('latest block on Monad testnet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-block-by-number', but the focus on 'latest' provides some distinction. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-block-by-number'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or any context about when this specific tool is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get MON balance for an address on Monad testnet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Monad testnet address to check balance for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, mention rate limits, error conditions, or what format the balance returns (e.g., in wei or MON tokens).
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a read operation or including key constraints, which would enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but omits behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, return format) that would help an agent use it correctly, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'address' well-documented in the schema as 'Monad testnet address to check balance for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 MON balance') and resource ('for an address on Monad testnet'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-block-by-number' or 'query-mon-nft', which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid testnet address) or compare it to sibling tools like 'send-mon-transaction' for balance changes, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query NFT information on Monad testnet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contractAddress | Yes | NFT contract address | |
| tokenId | Yes | Token ID of the NFT |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, or response format. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation or potential side effects, which is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., metadata, owner), how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits, leaving gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Query') and resource ('NFT information on Monad testnet'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-mon-balance' or 'get-block-by-number' that also query blockchain data, which prevents a perfect score.
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a contract address and token ID, or comparisons to other query tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send MON transaction on Monad testnet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount of MON to send | |
| to | Yes | Recipient address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, what the transaction cost or gas implications are, whether it's irreversible, or what the expected response format is. This is a significant gap for a transaction 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('amount' and 'to'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details (e.g., address format, unit for amount) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Send MON transaction') and specifies the target environment ('on Monad testnet'), which distinguishes it from mainnet operations. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'deploy-mon-contract' that might also involve transactions, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a wallet or balance), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'deploy-mon-contract' for contract deployments or 'get-mon-balance' for checking funds first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Watch for smart contract events on Monad testnet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abi | Yes | Contract ABI | |
| address | Yes | Contract address to watch | |
| eventName | Yes | Name of the event to watch | |
| fromBlock | No | Start watching from this block number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'watch for' events, implying a monitoring or subscription-like behavior, but doesn't clarify if this is a one-time query, a continuous stream, or how results are returned (e.g., real-time updates, batch retrieval). It also omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (likely, but not stated). For a tool with potential ongoing behavior, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Watch for smart contract events') and specifies the context ('on Monad testnet'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
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?
Given the complexity of blockchain event monitoring (which often involves streaming or subscription behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., event logs, real-time notifications), how to handle the watch operation (e.g., polling, WebSocket), or error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential behavioral nuances, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'Contract ABI', 'Contract address to watch'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining ABI format requirements or eventName matching rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 ('Watch for') and resource ('smart contract events on Monad testnet'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query-mon-nft' or 'get-block-by-number' which might also involve blockchain data retrieval, leaving room for ambiguity about when this specific event-watching capability is needed versus other querying methods.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a contract ABI), exclusions (e.g., not for historical data without 'fromBlock'), or comparisons to siblings like 'query-mon-nft' for NFT-specific queries. This lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is the appropriate choice.
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-mon-contractget-block-by-numberget-latest-blockget-mon-balancequery-mon-nftsend-mon-transactionwatch-contract-eventsScored across 7 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific blockchain operations on the Monad testnet. There is no overlap in functionality between tools like deploying contracts, querying blocks, checking balances, handling NFTs, sending transactions, and monitoring events.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-object pattern with hyphens (e.g., deploy-mon-contract, get-block-by-number). The naming is uniform across all seven tools, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for blockchain interactions, covering essential operations like contract deployment, block queries, balance checks, NFT queries, transactions, and event monitoring. Each tool serves a clear and necessary function without redundancy.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for core blockchain operations on the Monad testnet, including deployment, queries, and transactions. A minor gap is the lack of tools for contract interaction (e.g., calling functions) or advanced querying (e.g., transaction history), but the existing tools support basic workflows effectively.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Tenderly MCP server for blockchain dev — simulate, debug, and test on 100+ networks.
The OpenZeppelin Solidity Contracts MCP server integrates OpenZeppelin's security and style rules into AI-driven development workflows, enabling AI assistants to generate safe, correct, and production-ready smart contracts. It automatically validates generated code against OpenZeppelin standards (including imports, modifiers, naming conventions, and security checks) and supports various contract types including ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155, Stablecoins, RWA, Governor, and Account contracts through prompt-driven workflows.
