Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Jupiter Cancel D C A

jupiter_cancelDCA
Destructive

Create an unsigned transaction to cancel a DCA recurring order. SAP MCP context: Jupiter protocol tools are served as AgentKit ecosystem tools. Use them for quote, route, and swap preparation, then use SAP transaction preview/sign/submit tools when an unsigned transaction must pass MCP signer policy.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: paid value-action; preview cost and transaction effects before user confirmation. 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
userYesWallet that owns the DCA order
orderYesDCA order public key to cancel
recurringTypeYesRecurring order type — "time" for time-based DCA, "price" for price-triggered
computeUnitPriceNoCompute Unit Price parameter for Jupiter Cancel D C A.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (cancellation) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it creates an unsigned transaction (not executed directly), describes pricing as 'paid value-action' requiring preview, and states hosting constraints. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the need for user signing and the unsigned nature of the output.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose with repeated SAP MCP boilerplate in both the description and input schema description. While the first sentence is clear and front-loaded, the repetition makes it less concise. It could be trimmed by 30-40% without losing essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists and parameters are straightforward, the description adequately covers purpose, workflow, constraints (blocked hosted writes), and post-tool actions (preview/sign). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool within the SAP ecosystem.

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 coverage is 100% with self-explanatory descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds a note about using exact field names and avoiding private key material, but does not enrich meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 'Create an unsigned transaction to cancel a DCA recurring order.' It uses a specific verb (cancel) and resource (DCA recurring order), and distinguishes from sibling tools like jupiter_createDCA, jupiter_executeDCA, and jupiter_getDCAOrders by specifying cancellation and unsigned transaction generation.

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 provides extensive workflow context: Jupiter tools are for quote/route/swap, then use SAP transaction preview/sign/submit tools for signing. It explicitly warns against calling this as a paid hosted write and directs to local bridges or unsigned builders when signing is required. However, it does not contrast with other Jupiter cancel tools (e.g., jupiter_cancelLimitOrder) but the overall guidance is clear.

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