SAP MCP Server

Jupiter Get Quote

jupiter_getQuote

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get an optimally-routed swap quote with full route plan details (Metis engine). 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: read/discovery workflow. Pricing: paid read-premium; estimate first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool when the runtime cannot replay x402 natively. Routing: paid hosted call; call sap_estimate_tool_cost first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if the runtime cannot handle x402 natively. Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Raw token amount as string (no decimals)
`swapMode`	No	Swap Mode parameter for Jupiter Get Quote.
`inputMint`	Yes	Token mint address (base58)
`outputMint`	Yes	Token mint address (base58)
`maxAccounts`	No	Max accounts in transaction (default 64)
`slippageBps`	No	Slippage tolerance in bps (e.g. 50 = 0.5%)
`platformFeeBps`	No	Platform fee in bps
`dynamicSlippage`	No	Dynamic Slippage pagination control for Jupiter Get Quote.
`onlyDirectRoutes`	No	Restrict to single-hop routes
`asLegacyTransaction`	No	Return a legacy transaction
`restrictIntermediateTokens`	No	Restrict Intermediate Tokens mint, symbol, or token identifier used by Jupiter Get Quote.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds significant context: it mentions the Metis engine, emphasizes the hosted read/builder nature, and clearly states signer boundary ('never receive keypair bytes'). No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (SAP MCP context, execution guidance). It is informative but includes operational boilerplate that could be condensed. Overall, effective and not overly verbose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (11 parameters, many siblings, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral constraints, and operational guidance. No gaps identified.

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; all 11 parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 'Get an optimally-routed swap quote with full route plan details (Metis engine).' This specifies the verb (get), resource (swap quote), and scope (optimally-routed, full route plan). It distinguishes from siblings like jupiter_getPrice or jupiter_swap.

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 states when to use this tool ('quote, route, and swap preparation') and when to use alternative tools ('SAP transaction preview/sign/submit tools'). It also provides guidance on pricing and routing (e.g., 'estimate first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool').

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 Get Quote

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources