OpenZeppelin Docs MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_oz_contract retrieves contract-level details, get_oz_function focuses on specific functions, list_oz_modules provides a catalog, oz_index_status checks system readiness, and search_oz_docs performs general documentation searches. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with clear verb_noun structures: get_oz_contract, get_oz_function, list_oz_modules, oz_index_status, and search_oz_docs. The 'oz' prefix is uniformly applied, and verbs like 'get', 'list', and 'search' accurately describe the actions, ensuring predictability across the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing OpenZeppelin documentation. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function, from indexing and searching to retrieving specific details, without being overly sparse or bloated, making it efficient for agents to navigate.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core documentation needs comprehensively, including listing, searching, and retrieving detailed information at both contract and function levels, with a status check for system readiness. A minor gap might be the lack of tools for updating or managing documentation, but this is reasonable for a read-only documentation server, and agents can perform all essential queries without dead ends.
Average 3.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool that fetches API references, this omission leaves the agent without crucial operational context.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, response structure, or error cases, which are important for a tool interacting with external documentation sources. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.
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?
The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies the tool retrieves documentation for a named contract/library, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage nuances. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but unenhanced parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed API reference') and resource ('specific OpenZeppelin contract or library'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_oz_function' or 'search_oz_docs', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'list_oz_modules' for browsing or 'search_oz_docs' for broader queries, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., function signatures, parameters, return values, gas estimates, or security notes). It also omits operational details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error cases, or differentiation from siblings. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what 'detailed information' includes, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid function names beyond the schema's examples or clarification on version compatibility. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific function in OpenZeppelin Contracts'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_oz_contract' or 'search_oz_docs', which likely retrieve different types of information about OpenZeppelin components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'get_oz_contract' for contract-level details or 'search_oz_docs' for broader documentation searches, leaving 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.
Behavior2/5
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 the search scope but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), performance characteristics, or error handling. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (format, structure, or content of results), which is critical for a search tool. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for effective tool use.
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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, defaults, and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('OpenZeppelin Contracts documentation'), with specific content types mentioned ('guides, API references, and code examples'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_oz_contract' or 'get_oz_function', which appear to retrieve specific items rather than search documentation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_oz_modules' or 'oz_index_status'. It mentions what content is searched but gives no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing and optional filtering but fails to describe key behaviors such as the return format (e.g., list of names, details), pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 and key feature (optional filtering). It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like data freshness or limitations. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, 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.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters ('category' and 'version') with enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional filtering by category but doesn't explain the meaning of categories or versions beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('OpenZeppelin contracts and libraries'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'oz_index_status' which might also provide listing functionality, nor does it mention the optional filtering by version which is a key parameter.
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 description implies usage by mentioning optional filtering by category, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_oz_docs' or 'get_oz_contract'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context partially unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as checking index readiness, which is clear but minimal. It doesn't disclose additional traits like what 'ready' means operationally, potential latency, error conditions, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding, though the core function is stated.
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?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension by an agent.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context adequately. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values or error handling, which could be helpful for a status-checking tool. It's sufficient but not fully comprehensive for the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if the OpenZeppelin docs index is ready.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('OpenZeppelin docs index'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_oz_contract' or 'search_oz_docs' beyond implying this is a status check rather than a data retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this if other tools report the index is building.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (as a follow-up to index-building reports) and implies an alternative context (don't call it if the index is already ready or if other tools haven't reported building). It effectively guides the agent on appropriate invocation timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openzeppelin-docs-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pbuda/openzeppelin-docs-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pbuda/openzeppelin-docs-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openzeppelin-docs-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pbuda/openzeppelin-docs-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pbuda/openzeppelin-docs-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pbuda/openzeppelin-docs-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server