SAP MCP Server

magicblock deposit

magicblock_deposit

Build an unsigned transaction to deposit SPL tokens from Solana into an Ephemeral Rollup. Then use sap_preview_transaction, sap_sign_transaction, and sap_submit_signed_transaction — or use sap_payments_finalize_transaction for 1-call preview+sign+submit (hosted mode). Do not create local signing scripts. Builder fee applies.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool 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
`mint`	No	SPL mint. Defaults to USDC (mainnet) or devnet USDC
`owner`	Yes	Wallet pubkey that owns the tokens and will sign
`amount`	Yes	Base-unit amount to deposit (integer, minimum 1)
`cluster`	No	Cluster: 'mainnet', 'devnet', or custom RPC URL
`validator`	No	Optional ER validator pubkey. Defaults to the selected ephemeral RPC identity.
`idempotent`	No	Use idempotent variants for preparatory init instructions (default true)
`initIfMissing`	No	Initialize the transfer queue if missing (default true)
`initAtasIfMissing`	No	Initialize associated token accounts if missing (default true)
`initVaultIfMissing`	No	Initialize the vault if missing (default true)

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds value by clarifying that it only builds an unsigned transaction (no state mutation) and explains the signer boundary: 'hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required.' This goes beyond 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 front-loaded with the purpose but includes a repeated block of SAP execution guidance that also appears in the input schema description. It could be more concise without losing key information.

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 complexity (builder tool with payment workflow), the description covers the full flow: build, preview, sign, submit, along with pricing and routing guidance. It references necessary sibling tools and output schema exists, so no need to detail return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal per-parameter detail beyond the schema (e.g., defaults for mint and cluster). It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Build an unsigned transaction to deposit SPL tokens from Solana into an Ephemeral Rollup.' The verb 'deposit' and resource 'Ephemeral Rollup' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like magicblock_withdraw, though the purpose is distinct.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Then use sap_preview_transaction, sap_sign_transaction, and sap_submit_signed_transaction' and warns 'Do not create local signing scripts.' It also includes SAP execution guidance on estimation, pricing, and routing. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficient for typical use.

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.

magicblock deposit

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources