solana-mcp-server

Get SPL token accounts

get_token_accounts

Read-only

Lists SPL Token and Token-2022 accounts owned by a wallet, returning mint, raw amount, decimals, and optional zero-balance accounts for balance and holdings analysis.

Instructions

Lists SPL Token and Token-2022 accounts owned by an address, with mint, raw amount and decimals.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>"
    },
    "name": "get_token_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`owner`	Yes	Base58 wallet address that owns the token accounts
`includeEmpty`	No	Include token accounts with a zero balance

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by naming the return fields and flagging 'raw amount' (i.e., undecimalized), but it is silent on volume, ordering, pagination, and large-wallet behavior. Useful but not rich.

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 dense clause with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource and ending with the returned fields. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, a read-only annotation profile, and no output schema, the description's mention of returned fields (mint, amount, decimals) largely fills the return-value gap. Only the omission of any usage routing relative to siblings keeps it below complete.

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%, so both 'owner' and 'includeEmpty' are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the includeEmpty flag or address format beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('SPL Token and Token-2022 accounts') scoped to an owner address, and even names the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_balance, which an agent could plausibly confuse with token balances versus native balance.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is given. The phrase 'owned by an address' implies context, but nothing tells an agent when to prefer get_token_accounts over get_balance or recent_activity.

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

Deploy Server