SAP MCP Server

Jupiter Smart Swap

jupiter_smartSwap

Destructive

Smart Swap — all-in-one compound tool that fetches a quote and builds swap instructions in a single call. Provide input/output mints, amount, and wallet address to get back a quote, individual swap instructions, and a human-readable summary. The returned instructions can be assembled into a transaction and signed. This is the recommended entry-point for AI agents preparing a swap. 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
`amount`	Yes	Raw token amount to swap (in smallest unit, no decimals)
`swapMode`	No	Swap mode (default: ExactIn)
`inputMint`	Yes	Source token mint address
`feeAccount`	No	Solana wallet public key (base58)
`outputMint`	Yes	Destination token mint address
`maxAccounts`	No	Max accounts in transaction (default: 64)
`slippageBps`	No	Slippage tolerance in bps (e.g. 50 = 0.5%)
`userPublicKey`	Yes	Wallet public key that will sign the transaction
`platformFeeBps`	No	Platform fee in bps for referral revenue
`dynamicSlippage`	No	Enable dynamic slippage for better execution
`onlyDirectRoutes`	No	Restrict to single-hop routes for lower latency
`wrapAndUnwrapSol`	No	Auto wrap/unwrap SOL (default: true)
`asLegacyTransaction`	No	Return a legacy transaction instead of v0
`destinationTokenAccount`	No	Solana wallet public key (base58)
`dynamicComputeUnitLimit`	No	Use dynamic compute unit limit based on simulation
`restrictIntermediateTokens`	No	Restrict intermediate tokens to reduce risk
`computeUnitPriceMicroLamports`	No	Priority fee in micro-lamports per compute unit

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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not address destructive behavior. It describes building instructions, implying no immediate destructive action, but fails to reconcile with the annotation. The description lacks additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 overly long, mixing tool purpose with extensive SAP MCP policy guidance. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the subsequent paragraphs are verbose and could be condensed. Not every sentence earns its place; for example, the 'SAP MCP execution guidance' section is detailed but might be better suited elsewhere.

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 (17 parameters, existing output schema, and numerous siblings), the description covers core purpose, recommended usage, and integration with SAP tools. However, it omits error handling, edge cases, and details about the output beyond a 'human-readable summary.' The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description merely lists the required parameters (input/output mints, amount, wallet address) without adding new semantics or clarifying parameter relationships. It does not improve upon the schema.

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 it is an 'all-in-one compound tool' that fetches a quote and builds swap instructions, explicitly calling it the 'recommended entry-point for AI agents.' Among siblings like jupiter_swap and jupiter_swapInstructions, this tool combines both steps, making its purpose distinct.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this tool for quote/route/swap preparation, then use SAP transaction tools for signing. It also advises against calling this as a paid hosted write and directs to use local sap_payments bridge or unsigned builder. This clearly differentiates 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 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 Smart Swap

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources