solana-agent-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct function: balance, price, token operations, transaction details, health check, airdrop, and token scanning. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'solana_' prefix and mostly use verb_noun pattern (get_balance, request_airdrop). The 'solana_health' tool deviates slightly by lacking a verb, but it's still clear.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well-scoped for a Solana agent covering queries, health, and airdrop. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness3/5
Covers common queries (balance, price, token info, transaction) and devnet airdrop, but lacks essential operations like token transfers or swaps, limiting practical use.
Average 3.2/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 21 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The description states it gets a balance but omits critical details like error handling (e.g., if token mint doesn't exist), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The mismatch between described parameters (wallet address, token mint) and empty schema further confuses the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence) but incomplete and inaccurate. It sacrifices correctness for brevity, omitting the actual schema structure and providing false parameter expectations.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate with full behavioral details. Instead, it only offers a high-level purpose and misaligned parameters, leaving the agent unaware of how to properly call the tool (e.g., how to specify the required inputs).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions two parameters (wallet address, token mint) but the input schema has no properties. This contradiction is misleading. With schema coverage at 100% (no params), the description's added meaning is incorrect, failing to help the agent invoke the tool correctly.
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 retrieves an SPL token balance for a wallet and token mint, which distinguishes it from siblings like solana_get_balance (SOL balance) and solana_get_token_info (token metadata). However, the parameter information in the description contradicts the input schema, creating ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as solana_scan_tokens for multiple tokens or solana_get_balance for native SOL. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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 present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Get SOL balance,' which implies a read-only operation but provides no detail on side effects, rate limits, or response format. For a simple balance check, this may be adequate, but more context would help.
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?
A single concise sentence conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous text. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about input requirements and return value. The missing address parameter and lack of behavioral details leave the tool definition incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mentioning a 'wallet address,' but the input schema has no properties. This inconsistency misleads the agent into expecting a parameter that does not exist, making the description harmful rather than helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get SOL balance for any Solana wallet address,' which clearly identifies the resource and action. However, it implies a wallet address parameter is required, but the input schema has zero properties, creating confusion about how the tool is invoked.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like solana_get_token_balance. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, data freshness, or required network state. The contradiction between the described 'signature' and missing schema parameter further undermines transparency.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. While lacking structure (e.g., bullet points or prioritized info), it is not verbose.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete: it does not explain return values ('transaction details'), required context (network), or how to specify the signature. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent lacks essential information to use the tool correctly.
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?
With zero parameters in the schema, baseline is 4. The description adds the concept of a 'signature' identifier, adding meaning beyond the empty schema. However, it does not specify the signature's type, format, or how to provide it, reducing helpfulness.
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 'Get transaction details by signature' clearly identifies the action and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like solana_get_balance or solana_get_price. However, it implies a required 'signature' parameter that is not present in the input schema, which may cause confusion.
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, nor any context or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Describes high-level action but does not disclose return format, permissions needed, or whether it is read-only. Contradiction between 'any SPL token' and empty input schema is unexplained.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with main action, no wasted words. Every part is informative.
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 absence of input parameters, description fails to explain how the tool selects a token. No output schema or behavioral details. Major context missing for a tool that claims to fetch metadata for 'any' token.
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?
No parameters in input schema (0 params) so baseline is 4. Description adds value by specifying output fields (decimals, supply, authorities) beyond schema. However, it does not clarify how the tool identifies the token without parameters.
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?
Clearly states verb 'get' and resource 'on-chain metadata for SPL token', listing examples like decimals, supply, authorities. Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like solana_get_token_balance, but the purpose is specific enough.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites or context for usage (e.g., requires a token address, but input schema has no parameters). Implied by name but not explicit.
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. It mentions 'real-time WebSocket' but does not disclose whether the scan is a one-time fetch, ongoing subscription, or details about rate limits, disconnect handling, or response format.
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 sentence with no superfluous words. It earns its place by conveying the core purpose and source efficiently.
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?
Despite having no parameters or output schema, the description omits critical behavioral details such as what the scan returns (token addresses, metadata?), whether it continues or stops, and how to interpret results. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-related information beyond stating the purpose.
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 clearly states the verb 'Scan' and the resource 'recent pump.fun tokens' with the source 'real-time Helius WebSocket'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific queries like balance or price.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solana_get_token_info. The description does not provide context for selection 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Request SOL airdrop', without detailing side effects, return value, idempotency, authorization requirements, or whether the airdrop goes to the current user. This lack of detail is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to specify important details such as the recipient of the airdrop, the amount, or whether a wallet connection is required. An agent would need more context to use the tool correctly.
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 no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none.
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 clearly states the verb 'Request', the resource 'SOL airdrop', and the specific environment 'devnet (testnet only, not mainnet)'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like solana_get_balance or solana_get_price, which have different purposes.
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?
The description explicitly states that the tool should be used only on devnet/testnet and not on mainnet, providing clear contextual use guidance. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used beyond the network restriction.
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 must disclose behavioral information. It only states the API gets a price, omitting details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a cached or live price. For a simple read operation, more transparency is needed.
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?
A single sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., what authentication is needed, if any) slightly reduces completeness. Still, for a basic price query, it is adequate.
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 input schema has zero parameters (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not attempt to describe non-existent parameters, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool gets the current SOL price in USD. It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'SOL price in USD', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like solana_get_balance (balance) and solana_get_token_info (token info).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward and the sibling tools cover different functions (balance, token info, transaction), so the intended use case is implied. A brief note on when to prefer this over others would improve usability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool returns status information for RPC, scanner, and SOL price. It does not describe any side effects, but as a read-only health check, this is sufficient. Could mention non-mutating nature explicitly.
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 extremely concise, using a single sentence that front-loads the key outputs. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers its behavior and outputs. However, without an output schema, it could specify the format or structure of the returned statuses, though it's functional as is.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for no parameters is 4.
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 clearly states the tool checks system health by reporting RPC status, scanner status, and SOL price. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific tasks like balance checks or transactions.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is clear and the context implies it's used for a quick health overview. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is provided.
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:

[![solana-agent-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KorroAi/solana-agent-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KorroAi/solana-agent-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![solana-agent-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KorroAi/solana-agent-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/KorroAi/solana-agent-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/KorroAi/solana-agent-mcp'

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