SAP MCP Server

Jupiter Create Limit Order

jupiter_createLimitOrder

Create a limit order. Returns an unsigned transaction — sign and submit via executeTrigger. 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

Name	Required	Description
`maker`	Yes	Wallet address of the order creator
`payer`	Yes	Wallet paying for transaction fees
`feeBps`	No	Referral fee in bps
`expiredAt`	No	ISO 8601 expiry timestamp
`inputMint`	Yes	Input token mint
`outputMint`	Yes	Output token mint
`makingAmount`	Yes	Amount of input token to sell
`takingAmount`	Yes	Amount of output token to receive
`computeUnitPrice`	No	Priority fee (µ-lamports/CU)

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate a writable, non-idempotent operation), the description discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transaction, is paid ('pricing: paid value-action'), and has routing restrictions ('hosted accountless write is blocked'). This provides crucial behavioral context the agent needs.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the description includes repetitive SAP context text (the same 'Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow...' block appears both here and in the input schema). While informative, this duplication makes the description unnecessarily long.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 6 required, output schema exists), the description covers the essential workflow (returns unsigned transaction, signing via executeTrigger, pricing, routing) and SAP integration context. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema is provided.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds only a minor note about using exact field names and avoiding private key material. This aligns with the baseline expected 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 a limit order. Returns an unsigned transaction.' This specifies the action (create), resource (limit order), and output (unsigned transaction), distinguishing it from sibling Jupiter tools such as jupiter_cancelLimitOrder or jupiter_createDCA.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly instructs to sign and submit via executeTrigger and provides comprehensive SAP MCP execution guidance, including when to use this tool (for quote/route/swap preparation) and when to switch to SAP transaction preview/sign/submit tools. It also covers routing restrictions and billing 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 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.

Jupiter Create Limit Order

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources