Solana MCP Server

request_airdrop

Request a SOL airdrop on Solana devnet or testnet for testing purposes. Specify the recipient address, amount up to 2 SOL, and network.

Instructions

Request a SOL airdrop on devnet or testnet (for testing purposes only)

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "amount_sol": "<amount_sol>",
      "network": "<network>"
    },
    "name": "request_airdrop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	Yes	Solana address to receive the airdrop
`amount_sol`	Yes	Amount of SOL to airdrop (max 2)
`network`	Yes	Network for airdrop (devnet or testnet only)

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the testing-purpose limitation but does not add behavioral traits beyond the schema (e.g., rate limits, permissions, reversibility). It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 is adequate for a simple testing tool but lacks information about the return value (e.g., transaction signature), especially given no output schema is provided. It could be more complete.

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%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (address, amount_sol with max 2, network with enum devnet/testnet). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Request a SOL airdrop'), the resource (SOL), and the restricted context ('on devnet or testnet for testing purposes only'). It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like transfer_sol or get_balance.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states it is for testing on devnet/testnet only, which implies when not to use (not on mainnet). It provides clear context but does not name alternative tools, though siblings like transfer_sol or get_balance serve different purposes.

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