Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

magicblock withdraw

magicblock_withdraw
Destructive

Build an unsigned transaction to withdraw SPL tokens from an Ephemeral Rollup back to Solana. 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). 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesSPL mint on Solana
ownerYesWallet pubkey that owns the tokens and will sign
amountYesBase-unit amount to withdraw (integer, minimum 1)
clusterNoCluster: 'mainnet', 'devnet', or custom RPC URL
validatorNoOptional ER validator pubkey
idempotentNoUse idempotent variants for preparatory init instructions (default true)
escrowIndexNoOptional escrow index for the withdrawal
initIfMissingNoInitialize transfer queue if missing (default true)
initAtasIfMissingNoInitialize ATAs if missing (default true)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMCP content blocks returned to the caller.
isErrorNoTrue when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context that this builds an unsigned transaction (safe operation) and explains signer boundary, but could further detail the destructive effects when executed.

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 clear and front-loaded, but the description is lengthy with repetitive SAP MCP execution guidance that could be condensed. Structure is adequate but not maximally efficient.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, workflow, and execution context well. It does not explain return values (handled by output schema) but is sufficient 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with all 9 parameters fully described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter information beyond a note to use exact field names, so baseline score 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 verb 'withdraw' and the resource 'SPL tokens from an Ephemeral Rollup back to Solana', distinguishing it from siblings like magicblock_deposit and magicblock_transfer.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: use with sap_preview_transaction, sap_sign_transaction, sap_submit_signed_transaction, or optionally sap_payments_finalize_transaction. Also includes detailed SAP MCP execution guidance on estimation, routing, and signer boundaries.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources