Skip to main content
Glama

helius_get_bundle_statuses

Check Jito bundle statuses on Solana using Helius API to monitor transaction processing and confirmations.

Instructions

Get statuses of Jito bundles

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundleIdsYes
jitoApiUrlYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the tool logic by calling the Helius RPC method getBundleStatuses with the provided bundleIds and jitoApiUrl.
    export const getBundleStatusesHandler = async (input: GetBundleStatusesInput): Promise<ToolResultSchema> => {
      try {
        const statuses = await (helius as any as Helius).rpc.getBundleStatuses(input.bundleIds, input.jitoApiUrl);
        return createSuccessResponse(`Bundle statuses: ${JSON.stringify(statuses, null, 2)}`);
      } catch (error) {
        return createErrorResponse(`Error getting bundle statuses: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
      }
    }
  • The input schema definition for the helius_get_bundle_statuses tool, specifying required bundleIds array and jitoApiUrl.
    {
      name: 'helius_get_bundle_statuses',
      description: 'Get statuses of Jito bundles',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          bundleIds: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } },
          jitoApiUrl: { type: 'string' }
        },
        required: ['bundleIds', 'jitoApiUrl']
      }
    },
  • src/tools.ts:588-588 (registration)
    Registration of the handler function in the tools handlers dictionary.
    "helius_get_bundle_statuses": helius.getBundleStatusesHandler,
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 statuses (implying a read-only operation), but doesn't specify what 'statuses' include (e.g., success/failure, timestamps), whether it's real-time or cached, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get statuses of Jito bundles'), making it immediately understandable. No structural issues are present.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'statuses' entail, how to interpret results, or parameter details. For a tool that likely returns structured status data (e.g., from Jito bundles), this lacks necessary context for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'bundleIds' implicitly but provides no context on what they are, how to obtain them, or format requirements. It doesn't address 'jitoApiUrl' at all, leaving both parameters semantically unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 statuses') and target resource ('Jito bundles'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'helius_send_jito_bundle' (which sends bundles) or other status-checking tools like 'helius_poll_transaction_confirmation', leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing bundle IDs from a previous operation), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'helius_poll_transaction_confirmation' for transaction status. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/dcSpark/mcp-server-helius'

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