SAP MCP Server

magicblock swapQuote

magicblock_swapQuote

Destructive

Get a swap quote between two SPL mints (proxies Triton Metis swap API). Pass the result into magicblock_swap. Lightweight read tier; use this before any value-moving swap.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: Solana value-action or trading 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
`amount`	Yes	Raw amount to swap (unsigned integer string, e.g. '1000000')
`swapMode`	No	Swap mode: fixed input or fixed output amount
`inputMint`	Yes	Input token mint address
`outputMint`	Yes	Output token mint address
`maxAccounts`	No	Approximate maximum account budget for the route (default 64)
`slippageBps`	No	Slippage threshold in basis points (e.g. 50 = 0.5%)
`platformFeeBps`	No	Optional platform fee in basis points
`onlyDirectRoutes`	No	Limit routing to a single hop (default false)
`restrictIntermediateTokens`	No	Restrict intermediate tokens to a more stable set (default false)

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Get a swap quote' and 'Lightweight read tier', implying a read-only operation, but annotations set destructiveHint=true, indicating potential side effects. This is a direct contradiction. The description adds some context (proxy, execution guidance) but the contradiction fundamentally undermines transparency.

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 purpose, but the SAP MCP execution guidance is verbose and contains repetitive phrases (e.g., 'estimate first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool when the runtime cannot replay x402 natively' appears twice). It could be more succinct without losing information.

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?

While the description covers purpose, usage, and execution details, the contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint) creates confusion about the tool's true nature. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the behavioral inconsistency reduces trust. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter explanations beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself is detailed with descriptions for all 9 parameters. No extra semantics are contributed by the description.

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 gets a swap quote between two SPL mints, acting as a proxy to Triton Metis API. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling magicblock_swap by saying 'use this before any value-moving swap' and 'Pass the result into magicblock_swap', making the purpose 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Lightweight read tier; use this before any value-moving swap') and names the exact sibling tool (magicblock_swap) for execution. It also gives comprehensive execution steps including pricing, routing, and signer boundary handling, enabling correct usage.

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 swapQuote

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources