Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Metaplex-nft Set And Verify Collection

metaplex-nft_setAndVerifyCollection

Set and verify a collection on an NFT in a single transaction. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesNFT mint address (base58)
collectionYesNFT mint address (base58)
updateAuthorityYesNFT update authority
collectionAuthorityYesSolana public key (base58)

Output Schema

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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description confirms it's a write and adds that hosted accountless writes are blocked and user signing is required. However, it does not explain side effects on the NFT state (e.g., if the collection already exists) or error conditions beyond the input. The behavioral context is partially provided but incomplete.

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 excessively long and contains repetitive boilerplate about SAP MCP workflow, pricing, and routing that is largely irrelevant to the tool's specific purpose. The first sentence is concise, but the remainder dilutes the message and could be streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks critical details about post-invocation behavior, such as success confirmation, potential errors (e.g., invalid authority, existing collection), and state changes. The description focuses on system constraints rather than tool-specific outcomes.

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 already covers all 4 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value, only cautioning to use exact field names and avoid private key material. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description 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 it sets and verifies a collection on an NFT in a single transaction. This is specific enough to convey the primary purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like metaplex-nft_verifyCollection or metaplex-nft_deployCollection, relying on context rather than direct comparison.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides some guidance, such as confirming metadata URI and ownership before writes, and mentions that these Metaplex tools should be used when an NFT collection or badge is needed. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, and the usage context is mixed with extensive SAP MCP system instructions that may confuse the agent.

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