Solana MCP Server

get_transaction

Get Solana transaction details from its signature. Supports mainnet-beta, devnet, testnet.

Instructions

Get details of a Solana transaction by its signature

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": {
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "get_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signature`	Yes	Transaction signature (base58)
`network`	No	Solana network to use

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get details') but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description lacks behavioral transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It front-loads the action ('Get details'). However, it may be too concise, but for a simple tool it earns its place.

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?

The description does not specify what 'details' are returned (e.g., transaction status, logs, signatures), and no output schema exists. For a transaction tool, this omission could lead to agent confusion. The network parameter is also not mentioned in the description.

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%, with both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves details of a Solana transaction by signature, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_transactions, but does not elaborate on what 'details' includes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid signature first). The sibling list shows other transaction-related tools, but no comparative guidance is given.

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