Solana MCP Server

get_swap_quote

Calculate the best swap rate for any token pair on Solana using Jupiter DEX aggregator, requiring input/output mint addresses and amount.

Instructions

Get a swap quote from Jupiter DEX aggregator

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": {
      "input_mint": "<input_mint>",
      "output_mint": "<output_mint>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "get_swap_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`input_mint`	Yes	Input token mint address (or 'SOL' for native SOL)
`output_mint`	Yes	Output token mint address (or 'SOL' for native SOL)
`amount`	Yes	Amount of input token (UI amount)
`slippage_bps`	No	Slippage tolerance in basis points (default 50 = 0.5%)

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?

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits; however, it only states the action without mentioning that it is a read-only operation or any other behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with key action and resource.

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?

Adequate for a simple quoting tool with well-documented parameters, but lacks description of return value or how the quote is used, especially given no 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('swap quote') and specifies the context ('Jupiter DEX aggregator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'execute_swap'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before 'execute_swap'), nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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