Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Alldomains Register Domain

alldomains_registerDomain

Register a domain on AllDomains (supports multiple TLDs: .abc, .bonk, .poor, etc.). SAP MCP context: Protocol alldomains; operation class write. Use for AllDomains name registration and resolution workflows. Confirm domain, TLD, owner, and renewal or purchase terms before writes. Use only when the requested name service is not SNS-specific.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: local-signer write workflow. Pricing: paid builder; estimate first, then pay/build and finalize unsigned transactions locally when returned. Routing: hosted accountless write is blocked; do not call this as a paid hosted write and no x402 payment should be charged. Use the local sap_payments bridge or a hosted unsigned builder when user signing is required. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldNoTLD if not included in domain string
domainYesFull domain (e.g. "myname.abc", "trader.bonk")
walletYesSolana public key (base58)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMCP content blocks returned to the caller.
isErrorNoTrue when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that this is a paid write operation requiring estimation and local signing, and that hosted accountless writes are blocked. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) already indicate a write, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose and repetitive, especially with SAP MCP execution guidance that appears both in the description and the input schema description. The first sentence is clear, but the rest is cluttered with platform-specific instructions, reducing conciseness.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers essential behavioral aspects (paid, requires local signer, blocked as hosted write). However, it lacks clarity on what the tool returns and the SAP-specific jargon may be opaque to agents not familiar with that platform.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value, repeating schema examples (e.g., 'full domain (e.g. "myname.abc")') without deeper parameter semantics.

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 'Register a domain on AllDomains (supports multiple TLDs)' with specific TLD examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like alldomains_getOwnedDomains and alldomains_resolveDomain.

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 includes a single guideline: 'Use only when the requested name service is not SNS-specific.' It lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations. The majority of the text focuses on internal SAP routing, not usage context.

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

All SAP MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by protocol prefix (e.g., adrena_, jupiter_, sap_) which helps distinguish domains. Within each protocol, tool names clearly indicate actions (e.g., openPosition, getQuote). However, with 360 tools, some cross-protocol overlaps (e.g., multiple swap tools) and many similar fetch tools in the sap_* family require careful reading of descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Each protocol group follows a consistent naming convention (e.g., snake_case for adrena_, camelCase for 3land, sap_ prefix for SAP SDK tools). The mix of conventions across protocols is acceptable, though a uniform style would improve predictability. Minor inconsistency: hyphenated names like metaplex-nft_ vs underscores.

Tool Count2/5

360 tools is far too many for a well-scoped MCP server. This aggregates dozens of protocols and SAP-specific features, making navigation difficult. The server would benefit from being split into focused micro-servers (e.g., SAP identity, Jupiter DEX, NFT tools). The current count overwhelms the coherence of the set.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast range of Solana ecosystem activities: token operations, swaps, staking, NFT management, bridging, oracle data, identity registration, chat, escrow, subscriptions, and premium streaming. Major lifecycle operations are present, though some niche subdomains may have missing functions (e.g., detailed governance or lending management). Overall, it's comprehensive for the intended scope.

Resources