Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
solana-auditor

solana-auditor

by jdjdjjdrjnsn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

audit_solana_code

Run static security analysis on Solana Rust/Anchor code to identify vulnerabilities and harden your program.

Instructions

Runs static security vulnerability audit on Solana Rust/Anchor source code.

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": {
      "sourceCode": "<sourceCode>"
    },
    "name": "audit_solana_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceCodeYesRust/Anchor code to audit
programNameNoIdentifier of the program

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose the key behavioral trait 'static,' implying no code execution. However, it does not mention side effects, output format, potential latency, or limitations of the audit, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 well-structured sentence states the core function with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, the description is sufficient for basic selection and invocation. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the audit returns or how programName is used, leaving some context missing for a security-audit tool.

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%: sourceCode and programName each have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Runs') and resource ('static security vulnerability audit on Solana Rust/Anchor source code'), unambiguously distinguishing the tool from get_payment_invoice. Even without a title, an agent can know exactly what this tool does.

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 clearly frames when to use it: when a static security audit of Solana/Anchor source code is needed. It does not spell out exclusions or alternatives, but the only sibling is an unrelated payment-invoice tool, so the usage context is effectively clear.

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