Skip to main content
Glama
tywenk

Model Context Protocol Server for Solana Client

by tywenk

send_transaction

Send signed and serialized transactions to the Solana blockchain using the MCP server. This tool processes pre-formatted transaction data and returns the send result.

Instructions

Send a transaction that has already been signed and serialized into the wire format.

Args: txn (bytes): Signed transaction as bytes

Returns: str: Transaction send result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txnYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.py:638-638 (registration)
    Decorator that registers the send_transaction function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
  • The handler function that executes the tool logic: sends the provided signed transaction bytes to the Solana RPC endpoint using send_raw_transaction and returns the result.
    async def send_transaction(txn: bytes) -> str:
        """Send a transaction that has already been signed and serialized into the wire format.
    
        Args:
            txn (bytes): Signed transaction as bytes
    
        Returns:
            str: Transaction send result
        """
        async with AsyncClient(rpc_url) as client:
            result = await client.send_raw_transaction(txn)
            return f"Transaction sent: {result}"
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the transaction must be 'signed and serialized,' hinting at prerequisites, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'send'), potential side effects (e.g., fund transfers), error conditions, network dependencies, or response details. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids redundancy and uses minimal sentences. However, the 'Returns' section could be more informative (e.g., explaining what 'Transaction send result' entails), 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 the tool's complexity (a write operation with financial implications), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral details, error handling, and return value specifics, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'txn' as 'Signed transaction as bytes,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and format beyond the schema's 'binary' type. However, it doesn't detail encoding, size limits, or validation rules, leaving gaps. With one parameter, baseline is 4, but incomplete compensation lowers it to 3.

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 ('send a transaction') and specifies the resource ('transaction that has already been signed and serialized into the wire format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'confirm_transaction' or 'get_transaction' by focusing on submission rather than querying or confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage for sending pre-signed transactions, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'request_airdrop' for token transfers), or exclusions. With many sibling tools, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.

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