Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
tywenk

Model Context Protocol Server for Solana Client

by tywenk
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

get_epoch_schedule

Retrieve epoch schedule details from the Solana cluster's genesis configuration to understand the timing and structure of epochs on the blockchain.

Instructions

Returns epoch schedule information from this cluster's genesis config.

Returns: str: Epoch schedule in the format "Epoch schedule: {schedule}"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.py:129-138 (handler)
    The handler function for the 'get_epoch_schedule' tool. Decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration in the MCP server. Fetches the epoch schedule from Solana RPC via AsyncClient and returns a formatted string response.
    @mcp.tool()
async def get_epoch_schedule() -> str:
    """Returns epoch schedule information from this cluster's genesis config.

    Returns:
        str: Epoch schedule in the format "Epoch schedule: {schedule}"
    """
    async with AsyncClient(rpc_url) as client:
        schedule = await client.get_epoch_schedule()
        return f"Epoch schedule: {schedule}"
  • src/server.py:129-129 (registration)
    The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the get_epoch_schedule function as an MCP tool on the FastMCP instance.
    @mcp.tool()

Tool Definition Quality

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type ('str') and format ('Epoch schedule: {schedule}'), which adds useful context beyond the basic purpose. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, latency, or other operational traits like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It uses two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second specifies the return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words or unnecessary details.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and the return format, which is sufficient for basic use. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or deeper behavioral context, making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for tools with zero parameters, as there's no gap to compensate for.

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 tool's purpose: 'Returns epoch schedule information from this cluster's genesis config.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('epoch schedule information'), and source ('from this cluster's genesis config'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_epoch_info', which provides related but different data.

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 sibling tools like 'get_epoch_info' or explain scenarios where this specific schedule information is needed over other epoch-related data. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

Related 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/tywenk/mcp-sol'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server