Solana MCP Server

get_nft_collection_info

Retrieve NFT collection details by providing any NFT's mint address from the collection. Optionally specify the Solana network.

Instructions

Get info about an NFT collection by checking a sample NFT from the collection

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_nft_collection_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mint_address`	Yes	Mint address of any NFT in the collection
`network`	No	Solana network

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety. It indicates a read operation ('Get info'), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or require authentication. The description is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks explicit transparency.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It is well front-loaded.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and how, but does not mention what 'info' is returned (e.g., name, symbol, size). Given no output schema, a brief list of returned fields would improve completeness. However, for a simple tool, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the role of mint_address as a 'sample NFT from the collection', which clarifies that any NFT in the collection works.

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 'Get info about an NFT collection', with a specific method: 'by checking a sample NFT from the collection'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nft_metadata which gets info about a single NFT, not the collection.

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?

The description implies you need a sample NFT mint address to get collection info, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. With 37 sibling tools, more guidance would be beneficial.

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