solana-infra-mcp

Compare RPC latency

latency_compare

Compare read-latency (p50) for getSlot requests across Solana endpoints, including your configured node against public mainnet-beta, to measure network-inclusive performance.

Instructions

getSlot read-latency (p50) across endpoints, default the configured one vs public mainnet-beta. Network-inclusive - not a landing/first-seen proxy.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "latency_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	No
`samples`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context, such as 'network-inclusive - not a landing/first-seen proxy', which clarifies the measurement semantics. It does not mention auth or side effects, but these are less critical for a read-only latency tool.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a clarifying caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, default behavior, and a key behavioral nuance. It does not explain the return format, but for a latency comparison tool this is not a major gap.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage for parameters, and the description only implicitly references the 'urls' parameter via 'endpoints' and default vs. public. The 'samples' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 clearly states the tool measures getSlot read-latency (p50) across endpoints, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on latency comparison, not health or transaction submission.

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 provides clear context by mentioning the default comparison between the configured endpoint and public mainnet-beta, and the network-inclusive behavior. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the use case is evident.

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

Deploy Server