Solana MCP Server

transfer_token

Transfer SPL tokens from your wallet to any Solana address. Specify token mint, destination, amount, and network.

Instructions

Transfer SPL tokens from the configured wallet to a destination. 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>",
      "to_address": "<to_address>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "network": "<network>"
    },
    "name": "transfer_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions private key requirement but does not state that the operation is destructive, irreversible, or requires fees. Missing key 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key action and prerequisite are front-loaded.

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 is provided, yet the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites beyond the private key. Missing details on token account existence and decimal handling.

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 all parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states the action (Transfer), resource (SPL tokens), and scope (from configured wallet to destination). It distinguishes from siblings like transfer_sol (SOL) and burn_tokens (destruction).

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., transfer_sol, execute_swap). Only 'Requires PRIVATE_KEY' is given, which is a prerequisite but not a usage context.

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