SAP MCP Server

magicblock login

magicblock_login

Exchange a signed challenge for a bearer token (step 2 of PER auth flow). The token is used for private-balance and private transfers..

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool 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
`pubkey`	Yes	Wallet pubkey that signed the challenge
`cluster`	No	Cluster: 'mainnet', 'devnet', or custom RPC URL
`challenge`	Yes	Challenge string from magicblock_challenge
`signature`	Yes	Wallet signature over the challenge string

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 24, 2026

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"magicblock login input schema. Intent: SAP MCP tool 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. Use exact field names from this schema; do not guess aliases or include private key material."

Changed1 schema field changedJul 15, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / mock

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Use mock login flow (default false)",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it produces a bearer token for private operations, which is consistent. It does not disclose potential side effects like token expiration or rate limits, but the annotations cover basic safety traits adequately.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the subsequent SAP MCP execution guidance is lengthy, generic, and not specific to this tool, adding noise. The description could be more focused.

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 simplicity (authentication step), the description explains the purpose, step in the flow, and usage of the token. An output schema exists but is not described, which is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the challenge parameter originates from magicblock_challenge. This connects the parameter to the tool's workflow context, which aids correct parameter selection.

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 exchanges a signed challenge for a bearer token, explicitly labeling it as step 2 of the PER auth flow. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool magicblock_challenge (step 1) and other magicblock tools.

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 context by stating it is step 2 of the PER auth flow and that the token is used for private-balance and private transfers. It implicitly indicates that magicblock_challenge should be called first. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative uses or list prerequisites.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.