SAP MCP Server

Jupiter Swap Instructions

jupiter_swapInstructions

Destructive

Get individual swap instructions instead of a full transaction. Useful for composing with other instructions. 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 builder; estimate first, then pay/build and finalize unsigned transactions locally when returned. 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
`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 Instructions.
`wrapAndUnwrapSol`	No	Wrap And Unwrap Sol parameter for Jupiter Swap Instructions.
`useSharedAccounts`	No	Use Shared Accounts parameter for Jupiter Swap Instructions.
`asLegacyTransaction`	No	As Legacy Transaction transaction payload used by Jupiter Swap Instructions.
`destinationTokenAccount`	No	Solana wallet public key (base58)
`dynamicComputeUnitLimit`	No	Dynamic Compute Unit Limit controlling the maximum number of results returned by Jupiter Swap Instructions.
`computeUnitPriceMicroLamports`	No	Compute Unit Price Micro Lamports value to use for Jupiter Swap Instructions.

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: the tool returns individual swap instructions (not full transactions), is intended for composition, and involves paid builder flow with signer boundaries. It clarifies that value-moving results must be finalized locally, which is critical behavioral information not captured by annotations.

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 longer than necessary, with repetitive SAP MCP context and execution guidance that could be condensed. The first sentence effectively captures the core purpose, but subsequent paragraphs contain redundant information across the description and input schema. It could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and some behavioral traits. However, for a complex tool with 10 parameters, it lacks a typical workflow example or explanation of how the returned instructions integrate with other steps. It is adequate for the SAP MCP context but not fully comprehensive for general use.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. The schema descriptions for parameters like 'useTokenLedger' and 'dynamicComputeUnitLimit' are somewhat generic and could be improved, but the tool description itself does not compensate for this.

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 purpose: 'Get individual swap instructions instead of a full transaction. Useful for composing with other instructions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jupiter_swap and jupiter_smartSwap, which perform full swaps. The verb 'get' and resource 'swap instructions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool in the SAP MCP context: for quote, route, and swap preparation, then use SAP transaction preview/sign/submit tools. It mentions it is a 'paid builder' and gives steps for cost estimation and payment. However, the guidance is very SAP-specific and could be more generally applicable. It does not explicitly exclude other contexts.

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 Instructions

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources