solana-infra-mcp

Submit transaction + confirm landing

submit_transaction

Submit a pre-signed Solana transaction and verify on-chain confirmation (landed slot and time). Keyless relay: sign upstream, submit here.

Instructions

Relay a caller-SIGNED base64 transaction and confirm actual on-chain inclusion (landed slot + time). Keyless: the server never signs or holds keys - sign upstream, submit here.

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": {
      "signedTransaction": "<signedTransaction>"
    },
    "name": "submit_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	RPC URL (default: SOLANA_RPC_URL, else public mainnet-beta)
`maxWaitMs`	No
`signedTransaction`	Yes	Base64-encoded, fully signed transaction

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the server never signs or holds keys and that it confirms on-chain inclusion (landed slot + time). However, it does not mention timeout/error behavior or irreversible effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; all content is functional and front-loaded.

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?

Description covers main purpose and key behavior, and hints at output (landed slot + time). But it omits semantics/edge behavior for maxWaitMs and error handling, and with no output schema, return details are sparse.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Description clarifies that the signedTransaction is 'caller-SIGNED' and 'keyless', adding meaning beyond the schema's 'fully signed transaction'. The url and maxWaitMs parameters are not elaborated beyond schema/defaults.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Relay' and resource 'caller-SIGNED base64 transaction', with clear goal 'confirm actual on-chain inclusion'. Clearly differentiates from read-only sibling tools like rpc_health and epoch_info.

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?

It states 'sign upstream, submit here' and 'Keyless', indicating this tool is for already-signed transactions. Provides clear context for when to use, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling alternatives.

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

Deploy Server