Skip to main content
Glama
tywenk

Model Context Protocol Server for Solana Client

by tywenk

get_signature_statuses

Check the status of multiple Solana transaction signatures using this tool. Input a list of signatures to receive their confirmation statuses, ensuring efficient blockchain transaction tracking.

Instructions

Returns the statuses of a list of signatures.

Args: signatures (list[str]): List of transaction signatures to confirm

Returns: str: Signature statuses in the format "Signature statuses: {statuses}"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signaturesYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_signature_statuses' tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool(), which handles both registration and schema inference from type hints and docstring. Converts string signatures to Signature objects, fetches statuses from Solana RPC, and formats the response.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_signature_statuses(signatures: list[str]) -> str:
        """Returns the statuses of a list of signatures.
    
        Args:
            signatures (list[str]): List of transaction signatures to confirm
    
        Returns:
            str: Signature statuses in the format "Signature statuses: {statuses}"
        """
        async with AsyncClient(rpc_url) as client:
            sigs = [Signature.from_string(sig) for sig in signatures]
            statuses = await client.get_signature_statuses(sigs)
            return f"Signature statuses: {statuses}"
  • src/server.py:258-258 (registration)
    The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the get_signature_statuses function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns statuses but doesn't describe what 'statuses' entail (e.g., confirmed, failed, pending), potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the return format description could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'statuses' mean, how they're formatted beyond a basic string, or potential behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a complex domain (blockchain/transactions), more context is needed for effective use.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'signatures' parameter as 'List of transaction signatures to confirm', adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal coverage (0%). However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., signature length, encoding) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. With one parameter and partial compensation, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the statuses of a list of signatures.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('statuses of signatures'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' or 'confirm_transaction', which might also provide status-related information.

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 'confirm_transaction' or 'get_transaction', which could be related, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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