Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Base Contract Auditor MCP Server

Base Contract Auditor MCP Server

by ossamartinaaron09-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

audit_contract

Audit Base Mainnet smart contract bytecode for risky opcodes, proxy patterns, interfaces, and owner controls, then calculate a risk score; requires a confirmed 0.50 USDC payment.

Instructions

Performs an on-chain bytecode security audit of a smart contract on Base Mainnet. Checks for SELFDESTRUCT opcodes, DELEGATECALL proxies, ERC-20/721 interfaces, centralized owner selectors, and calculates a risk score. Requires a confirmed 0.50 USDC transfer on Base.

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": {
      "contract_address": "<contract_address>",
      "tx_hash": "<tx_hash>"
    },
    "name": "audit_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tx_hashYesThe 66-character 0x transaction hash on Base confirming the 0.50 USDC payment to the auditor vault (0xbefe9ce194a3d685486e5fda11c5221146de4d6c).
contract_addressYesThe 42-character 0x EVM smart contract address on Base Mainnet to audit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the specific checks and the payment prerequisite, but it does not state whether the audit is read-only, what happens if payment is missing, or what the response includes. This is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and audit scope, then lists checks and the payment requirement. It is efficient overall, though slightly dense with check names.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the audit purpose, checks performed, and payment prerequisite, which is enough to understand invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain the return shape or behavioral edge cases, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that the contract is on Base Mainnet and that payment is required, but it does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: it performs an on-chain bytecode security audit of a smart contract on Base Mainnet. It also enumerates what is checked and mentions a risk score, making the tool clearly distinguishable from sibling utilities like payment info and service status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear usage context by stating the audit runs on Base Mainnet and requires a confirmed 0.50 USDC transfer. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisite makes the intended invocation clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools