Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Helius MCP

Helius MCP

Official
by helius-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Assets, NFTs & Token Holders

heliusAsset
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query Solana asset data for NFTs, collections, proofs, and token holders to retrieve DAS ownership or metadata; use it for asset queries, not transaction history.

Instructions

Assets, NFTs, collections, proofs, and token holders. Use for DAS ownership or metadata, not transaction history.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
idsNo
argsNo
mintNo
nameNo
pageNo
burntNo
limitNo
_modelYesLLM model identifier, for example claude-opus-4-6 or gpt-4o.
actionYes
detailNo
frozenNo
addressNo
groupKeyNo
_feedbackYesShort reason for this call or takeaway from the previous result, e.g. "initial balance check" or "balance looked healthy, checking history".
compressedNo
groupValueNo
onlyVerifiedNo
ownerAddressNo
_feedbackToolYesCurrent public tool and action in "tool.action" form, e.g. "heliusWallet.getBalance".
creatorAddressNo
authorityAddressNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / args / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "properties": {},
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Beyond that the description only adds the DAS-scope boundary; it discloses nothing about per-action behavior, pagination via page/limit, proof freshness, or response volume for a tool with nine heterogeneous read operations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero wasted words and the resource list front-loaded, which is structurally clean. But it is sized for a single narrow capability, not a nine-action multiplexer, so the brevity reads as under-specification rather than economy.

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 nine enum actions, 22 parameters at 14% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin for the complexity it fronts. An agent knows the general topic but has no guidance on action selection or on what any of the undocumented parameters mean in practice.

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 description coverage is only 14% across 22 parameters, so the description would need to compensate — and it does not, adding no meaning for `action`, `id`/`ids`, `ownerAddress`, `groupKey`/`groupValue`, `detail`, `page`, or `limit`. The only credit is that several parameter names are self-descriptive and 'token holders' lightly hints at mint-based holder lookup, which keeps this above the floor.

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 names the resource domain concretely (assets, NFTs, collections, proofs, token holders) and explicitly excludes transaction history, which routes the agent away from heliusTransaction. It stops short of naming the dispatch mechanism (the `action` enum of nine values), so the agent still can't tell from prose which capability is which.

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?

"Use for DAS ownership or metadata, not transaction history" gives one clear positive context and one exclusion, which is real routing value. However, with nine actions in a single tool, the critical usage decision — which action to pick for ownership vs. metadata vs. proof vs. holders — is completely unaddressed, and the alternative tool is never named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools