SAP MCP Server

Jupiter Swap

jupiter_swap

Destructive

Build an unsigned swap transaction from a quote response. Sign and send the returned transaction. 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: Solana value-action or trading 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
`feeAccount`	No	Solana wallet public key (base58)
`quoteResponse`	Yes	The full quoteResponse object from getQuote
`userPublicKey`	Yes	Solana wallet public key (base58)
`useTokenLedger`	No	Use Token Ledger mint, symbol, or token identifier used by Jupiter Swap.
`dynamicSlippage`	No	Dynamic Slippage pagination control for Jupiter Swap.
`wrapAndUnwrapSol`	No	Auto wrap/unwrap SOL (default true)
`useSharedAccounts`	No	Use Shared Accounts parameter for Jupiter Swap.
`asLegacyTransaction`	No	As Legacy Transaction transaction payload used by Jupiter Swap.
`destinationTokenAccount`	No	Solana wallet public key (base58)
`dynamicComputeUnitLimit`	No	Dynamic Compute Unit Limit controlling the maximum number of results returned by Jupiter Swap.
`skipUserAccountsRpcCalls`	No	Skip User Accounts RPC Calls endpoint or RPC selector used by Jupiter Swap.
`computeUnitPriceMicroLamports`	No	Priority fee in 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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description does not contradict annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It adds context about pricing (paid value-action), routing (hosted accountless write blocked), and signer boundary (non-custodial). This goes beyond the annotations to clarify behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core action, but contains verbose SAP MCP context that adds length. While relevant, it could be more concise without losing essential guidance.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns an unsigned transaction, references the getQuote tool for input, and includes workflow context. With 12 parameters and nested objects, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 input schema already describes each parameter. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which are sometimes vague (e.g., 'Dynamic Slippage pagination control'). A 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 the tool's primary action: 'Build an unsigned swap transaction from a quote response.' It also distinguishes from siblings like jupiter_smartSwap and jupiter_swapInstructions by positioning this tool as a preparatory step before signing/submitting.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (for swap preparation) and explicitly states when not to use it (avoid as a paid hosted write or charging x402). It mentions using SAP transaction preview/sign/submit tools for signing, but could be clearer about alternatives like jupiter_smartSwap.

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 Swap

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources