Skip to main content
Glama

canton-ccpedia

by io.github.UnityNodes

compare_to_evm

Read-onlyIdempotent

Map one Ethereum/EVM concept (e.g. smart contract, wallet, gas, ERC20, Hardhat, ABI) to its Canton Network equivalent, for developers migrating from Solidity/EVM to Canton. Canton-specific (target is always Canton). Use for single concept-to-concept translations; use get_started_guide for a full EVM-to-Canton learning path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conceptYesEVM concept, e.g. "smart contract", "wallet", "gas", "ERC20", "Hardhat", "Remix", "ABI".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the mapping purpose. It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate as annotations carry the burden.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence defines purpose with examples, and the second provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded with no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, scope, usage boundaries, and examples. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description listing examples. The tool description adds context by stating the concept is an EVM concept and providing examples like 'smart contract', 'wallet', etc. This adds some value but does not significantly surpass the schema's description. Baseline 3 is suitable.

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 explicitly states the tool maps an EVM concept to its Canton Network equivalent, using a specific verb 'map' and resource 'concept'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_started_guide', meeting the criteria for specificity and differentiation.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use for single concept-to-concept translations' and when-not-to-use: 'use get_started_guide for a full EVM-to-Canton learning path'. It explicitly names an alternative sibling tool.

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

All canton-ccpedia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping search/retrieval functionality (search, semantic_search, full_context, search_community, search_github_issues, etc.), and the CIP-specific variants (get_cip, get_cip_history, get_cip_votes, get_cip_mentions, get_cip_citations) are numerous and subtly differentiated. Despite cross-references in the descriptions, the boundaries are fine-grained and an agent is likely to misselect among the 8+ search tools or the 8+ CIP tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_x, list_x, search_x, find_x). Mixed styles or camelCase are absent, and the verb choice (get, list, search, find, detect, compare) is semantically appropriate to each action, making the naming highly predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 88 tools, the surface is extremely overgrown for a single server, far exceeding the 25+ 'too many' threshold and approaching the 50+ 'extreme mismatch' category. Even for a comprehensive ecosystem knowledge base, this creates a massive selection burden and makes the tool set unwieldy for agents.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full Canton ecosystem: docs, forum, mailing lists, GitHub, CIPs, governance, validators, versions, deprecations, security, and media. There are no glaring gaps in the knowledge domain; every major resource type has retrieval and analysis tools, making the coverage exhaustive with no obvious dead ends.

Resources