Skip to main content
Glama
tywenk

Model Context Protocol Server for Solana Client

by tywenk

request_airdrop

Initiate lamports airdrop to a specified Solana address using the Solana Client Protocol Server, enabling quick transaction of funds.

Instructions

Request an airdrop of lamports to a Pubkey.

Args: address (str): Public key of recipient lamports (int): Amount of lamports to request

Returns: str: Airdrop request result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
lamportsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'request_airdrop' tool, decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration. It uses Solana's AsyncClient to request an airdrop of specified lamports to the given address.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def request_airdrop(address: str, lamports: int) -> str:
        """Request an airdrop of lamports to a Pubkey.
    
        Args:
            address (str): Public key of recipient
            lamports (int): Amount of lamports to request
    
        Returns:
            str: Airdrop request result
        """
        async with AsyncClient(rpc_url) as client:
            result = await client.request_airdrop(Pubkey.from_string(address), lamports)
            return f"Airdrop request: {result}"
  • src/server.py:622-622 (registration)
    The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the request_airdrop function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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 action ('Request an airdrop') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or any rate limits. The return value is vaguely described as 'Airdrop request result' without detailing success/failure outcomes.

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 with a clear opening sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects), error handling, and practical usage context. The return value description is too vague to be helpful without an output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'address' as 'Public key of recipient' and 'lamports' as 'Amount of lamports to request', which clarifies the purpose of each parameter. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., address encoding, lamports range) or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 action ('Request an airdrop') and the resource ('lamports to a Pubkey'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_balance' or 'send_transaction' by focusing on airdrop requests specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none exist in siblings).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., network conditions, availability), limitations (e.g., rate limits, testnet-only), or when not to use it. Siblings include 'send_transaction' for general transfers, but no comparison is made.

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