Provides auditing of smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain, analyzing verified source code and on-chain state for risks like upgradeable proxies, owner powers, and honeypot patterns.
Provides auditing of smart contracts on the Optimism blockchain, leveraging Sourcify for verified source code and live RPC checks for owner status and dangerous operations.
Provides auditing of smart contracts on the Polygon blockchain, including source verification via Sourcify and heuristic scanning for centralization and rug-pull risks.
Click on "Install 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., "@contract-auditor Audit contract 0xdAC17F958D2ee523a2206206994597C13D831ec7 on Ethereum"
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.
Quick-scan a smart contract for rug / honeypot / centralization risk before you approve or send funds.
contract-auditor is an MCP server and a pay-per-call x402 HTTP API. Give it a deployed contract address + chain (or raw Solidity source) and it returns a SAFE / CAUTION / HIGH-RISK verdict with an explained risk score.
It combines three things an AI agent can't gather on its own from a chat:
Verified source from Sourcify (key-less, multi-chain) — or the absence of it (a strong red flag).
Live on-chain state via public RPC — is there code at all? Is it an upgradeable proxy (owner can swap the code)? Who is the owner, and is it a single EOA, a multisig, or renounced?
Heuristic Solidity scan for the real ways a contract takes or freezes your funds.
⚠️ Heuristic quick-scan, not a formal audit. Absence of findings is not proof of safety. Always do your own research before sending funds.
🔁 Upgradeable proxy | EIP-1967 / 1167 / beacon — the owner can replace the audited code |
👑 Owner powers | mint, pause, blacklist, owner-adjustable fees/tax, max-tx limits, trading on/off, withdraw/sweep |
💀 Dangerous primitives |
|
🍯 Honeypot signals | can't-sell patterns: blacklist + uncapped tax + trading switch + wallet/tx caps |
🔓 Owner status | live on-chain: renounced, single EOA (one key), or multisig/timelock? |
❓ Unverified | no verified source on Sourcify = you can't read what you're trusting |
Related MCP server: base-security-scanner-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"contract-auditor": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "contract-auditor-mcp"] }
}
}Tool: audit_contract — params: address, chain (alias or chainId), source (optional raw Solidity), deep (boolean).
Or connect over HTTP at POST /mcp.
GET https://contract-auditor-ivory.vercel.app/audit?address=0xdAC17F958D2ee523a2206206994597C13D831ec7&chain=ethereum
GET https://contract-auditor-ivory.vercel.app/audit?address=0x...&chain=baseSupported chains: ethereum, base, optimism, arbitrum, polygon, bsc, avalanche, gnosis, celo (or a numeric chainId). Free tier is rate-limited to 30 requests/hour/IP.
The /pro/audit route is gated by x402. Your agent pays $0.25 USDC per call automatically — no sign-up, no API key — settling on-chain (USDC on Base) to the operator wallet.
GET /pro/audit?address=0x...&chain=ethereum # 402 → pay → resultSource is fetched from Sourcify by (chainId, address). If a contract is only verified on a native explorer and not mirrored to Sourcify, it shows as unverified here — pass the source directly to scan it.
On-chain checks use public RPCs (best-effort, community endpoints). If a chain's RPC is briefly down the audit degrades to a source-only verdict.
The Solidity scan is static pattern/heuristic analysis with comment-stripping and owner-gating context. It is tuned for low false-alarm on well-known patterns, but it is not symbolic execution or a formal verifier.
MIT
Run a security QUICK-SCAN on a smart contract BEFORE you interact with it or send funds. Give it a deployed contract address + chain (or raw Solidity source) and it returns a SAFE / CAUTION / HIGH-RISK verdict with an explained risk score. It fetches the VERIFIED source from Sourcify (key-less), reads LIVE on-chain state via public RPC (is there code? is it an upgradeable proxy? who is the owner and is it a single EOA or renounced?), and statically scans the Solidity for owner-controlled mint/pause/blacklist/fee, selfdestruct, delegatecall, tx.origin auth, reentrancy shape and honeypot patterns (can't sell, owner-adjustable taxes). Use whenever you're about to approve, buy, fund, or integrate a contract you don't fully trust. Heuristic, not a formal audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | Deployed contract address (0x + 40 hex). | |
| chain | No | Chain alias or numeric chainId. Supported: ethereum (1), base (8453), optimism (10), arbitrum (42161), polygon (137), bsc (56), avalanche (43114), gnosis (100), celo (42220). Defaults to ethereum. | |
| source | No | Optional: raw Solidity source to scan directly instead of (or when there is no) a verified on-chain address. | |
| deep | No | When true, include extra per-file detail and authority checks. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It details that the tool fetches verified source from Sourcify (key-less), reads live on-chain state via public RPC, and statically scans for specific patterns (owner controls, selfdestruct, delegatecall, etc.). It also states the limitation 'Heuristic, not a formal audit,' providing honest behavioral context.
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 long paragraph but is well-structured: it starts with the primary purpose and then delves into details. While comprehensive, it is slightly verbose and could be broken into shorter sentences for easier scanning without losing 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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains inputs, the process (what data is fetched and analyzed), output format (verdict types), and limitations. All critical aspects are covered, making the description self-sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description explains the overall process but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for parameters; for example, it mentions 'source' as optional when no verified source exists, but the schema already covers that. Baseline is 3 as the schema handles the burden.
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 tool performs a security quick-scan on smart contracts before interacting or sending funds, specifying it returns a SAFE/CAUTION/HIGH-RISK verdict with an explained risk score. It lists the checks performed (verified source, on-chain state, static scans), making the purpose specific and actionable.
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 explicitly says 'Use whenever you're about to approve, buy, fund, or integrate a contract you don't fully trust,' providing clear usage context. It also notes it's a heuristic, not a formal audit, implying caution but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which would improve the score.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.2audit_contractWith only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described.
Single tool has a clear verb_noun name ('audit_contract'), which is consistent with itself and follows a predictable pattern.
One tool is borderline but acceptable given the narrow focus of the server. The tool is comprehensive and not trivial.
The server fully covers its stated purpose of performing a quick security scan. No obvious gaps for the intended use case.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Instant rug-check for any EVM or Solana token, distilled to one clear 0-10 risk verdict.
Rug pull risk and on-chain forensics for tokens on Solana, Ethereum, Base and Robinhood.
Solana wallet & token reputation lookup. Risk verdict, score, DefiLlama TVL, Rugcheck.
Check a Base contract, transaction or web page before you act. Free pricing, paid per call in USDC.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Baneado98/contract-auditor'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
