Skip to main content
Glama

helius_get_leader_schedule

Retrieve the leader schedule for a specific Solana blockchain epoch to identify validator nodes responsible for block production.

Instructions

Get the leader schedule for an epoch

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slotNo
commitmentNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic for the 'helius_get_leader_schedule' tool by calling the Solana RPC getLeaderSchedule method via the Helius client.
    export const getLeaderScheduleHandler = async (input: GetLeaderScheduleInput): Promise<ToolResultSchema> => {
      try {
        // getLeaderSchedule doesn't accept parameters in the real SDK
        const leaderSchedule = await (helius as any as Helius).connection.getLeaderSchedule();
        return createSuccessResponse(`Leader schedule: ${JSON.stringify(leaderSchedule, null, 2)}`);
      } catch (error) {
        return createErrorResponse(`Error getting leader schedule: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
      }
    }
  • The input schema definition for the 'helius_get_leader_schedule' tool, specifying optional slot and commitment parameters.
    {
      name: "helius_get_leader_schedule",
      description: "Get the leader schedule for an epoch",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          slot: { type: "number" },
          commitment: { type: "string", enum: ["confirmed", "finalized", "processed"] }
        },
        required: []
      }
    },
  • src/tools.ts:568-568 (registration)
    The registration of the tool name to its handler function in the handlers dictionary.
    "helius_get_leader_schedule": getLeaderScheduleHandler,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or return values. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 no parameters, while the schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'slot' or 'commitment' mean, their relationship to 'epoch', or how they affect the leader schedule. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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') and resource ('leader schedule for an epoch'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'helius_get_epoch_info' or 'helius_get_epoch_schedule' by focusing specifically on leader schedules. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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, context for calling it, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'helius_get_epoch_info' or 'helius_get_epoch_schedule'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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