SAP MCP Server

Bridging Bridge De Bridge

bridging_bridgeDeBridge

Destructive

Bridge tokens across chains via deBridge DLN. Fast cross-chain transfers with deterministic pricing. SAP MCP context: Protocol bridging; operation class write. Use for cross-chain asset movement through Wormhole or deBridge. Confirm source chain, destination chain, token mint, amount, recipient, route fees, and finality expectations before invoking a bridge write. For bridge flows call the matching status tool after submission. If the bridge capability belongs to a registered SAP agent, plan the profile with sap_agent_identity_plan, register through sap_payments_register_agent, then advertise bridge capability IDs with sap_payments_update_agent or sap_publish_tool_by_name.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: paid read-premium; estimate first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool when the runtime cannot replay x402 natively. 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

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount to bridge (raw)
`sender`	Yes	Sender address
`tokenIn`	Yes	Token address on source chain
`tokenOut`	Yes	Token address on destination chain (use "0x0" for native)
`recipient`	Yes	Recipient address on destination chain
`slippageBps`	No	Slippage tolerance in bps
`sourceChain`	Yes	Source chain ID (e.g. 7565164 for Solana)
`destinationChain`	Yes	Destination chain ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	MCP content blocks returned to the caller.
`isError`	No	True when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about confirming parameters and finality expectations, but does not disclose side effects or what gets destroyed. The SAP MCP boilerplate does not add behavioral transparency.

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 with multiple paragraphs of repetitive SAP MCP execution guidance that could be externalized. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the rest is cluttered and not concise.

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 presence of an output schema and high parameter coverage, the description covers core purpose and post-submission status checking. However, it lacks details on return types, failure modes, and gas estimation, leaving gaps for a complex bridge tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the need to confirm parameters, which is more usage guidance than 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 the tool bridges tokens across chains via deBridge DLN with deterministic pricing. It distinguishes from siblings like bridging_bridgeWormhole and bridging_bridgeDeBridgeStatus.

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 mentions using the tool for cross-chain asset movement and calling the status tool after submission, but does not explicitly compare to bridging_bridgeWormhole or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The extensive SAP MCP context is generic and not tool-specific.

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 tools Inspect

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.

Bridging Bridge De Bridge

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources