SAP MCP Server

Metaplex-nft Revoke Authority

metaplex-nft_revokeAuthority

Destructive

Revoke (remove) a specific authority. Irreversible for some types. SAP MCP context: Protocol metaplex-nft; operation class write. Use for Metaplex NFT collection, mint, metadata, royalty, creator verification, collection verification, and authority workflows. Confirm metadata URI, collection mint, creators, royalties, update authority, and ownership before writes. For agent identity, plan with sap_agent_identity_plan, register the SAP on-chain profile through sap_payments_register_agent, then use agentUri or metadataUri to point at off-chain or NFT-backed metadata. Use these Metaplex tools when the agent also needs an NFT collection, badge, or verifiable media asset.

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: hosted accountless write is blocked; do not call this as a paid hosted write and no x402 payment should be charged. Use the local sap_payments bridge or a hosted unsigned builder when user signing is required. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mint`	Yes	NFT mint address (base58)
`authority`	Yes	Current authority holder
`authorityType`	Yes	Authority Type parameter for Metaplex-nft Revoke Authority.

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: +"Metaplex-nft Revoke Authority 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: hosted accountless write is blocked; do not call this as a paid hosted write and no x402 payment should be charged. Use the local sap_payments bridge or a hosted unsigned builder when user signing is required. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial. Use exact field names from this schema; do not guess aliases or include private key material."

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions 'Irreversible for some types,' which adds to the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not elaborate on which types are irreversible or describe other side effects. The extensive execution guidance (pricing, routing) is relevant to invocation but not to operational behavior beyond what annotations already indicate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly verbose with repeated SAP MCP execution guidance that is also present in the schema description. The core purpose is buried under lengthy context, making it less efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description provides some contextual warnings ('confirm before writes') and lists supported authority types implicitly via the parameter enum. However, it lacks clear prerequisites or a statement of what changes are irreversible, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter info. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'mint is base58 address'). Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action: 'Revoke (remove) a specific authority.' It also lists related workflows (collection, mint, metadata, etc.), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delegateAuthority, which would earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description includes generic phrases like 'Use these Metaplex tools when the agent also needs an NFT collection...' but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose revokeAuthority over alternatives. It does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites beyond confirming metadata.

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.