Solana MCP Server

burn_tokens

Reduce token supply by burning SPL tokens from your wallet. Specify the mint address, amount, and network to permanently remove tokens from circulation.

Instructions

Burn SPL tokens from the configured wallet. Requires PRIVATE_KEY.

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": {
      "mint_address": "<mint_address>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "network": "<network>"
    },
    "name": "burn_tokens"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mint_address`	Yes	Token mint address
`amount`	Yes	Amount of tokens to burn (UI amount)
`network`	Yes	Network — MUST be specified

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Only states destructive nature and private key requirement; lacks details on side effects, authorization, rate limits, or irreversibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Concise but could add more context without being too long. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema; description omits return values, error handling, or prerequisite checks. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotations, the description is inadequate.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides, baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the action (burn), resource (SPL tokens), and context (configured wallet). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like mint or transfer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Only mentions requirement of PRIVATE_KEY; no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. The purpose implies destruction but lacks comparisons.

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