SAP MCP Server

Metaplex-nft Update Metadata

metaplex-nft_updateMetadata

Update NFT metadata fields (name, symbol, URI, creators, royalties, authority). 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: local-signer write 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
`uri`	No	New metadata URI
`mint`	Yes	NFT mint address
`name`	No	New name
`symbol`	No	New symbol
`creators`	No	Creators parameter for Metaplex-nft Update Metadata.
`isMutable`	No	Is Mutable parameter for Metaplex-nft Update Metadata.
`updateAuthority`	Yes	Current update authority
`newUpdateAuthority`	No	Solana public key (base58)
`primarySaleHappened`	No	Primary Sale Happened parameter for Metaplex-nft Update Metadata.
`sellerFeeBasisPoints`	No	Seller Fee Basis Points parameter for Metaplex-nft Update Metadata.

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, detailing that this is a write operation requiring local signing, specifying pricing as 'paid read-premium', and noting routing restrictions. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and does not contradict them.

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 long and includes tangential details about SAP MCP context, agent identity, and execution guidance that could be condensed or placed elsewhere. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the verbosity detracts from clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, write operation), the description covers execution context (pricing, routing, signing) but does not mention the output or return value, even though an output schema exists. It is adequate but has room for improvement.

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 with descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The description lists the fields but provides no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. 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 that the tool updates NFT metadata fields such as name, symbol, URI, creators, royalties, and authority. It identifies the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like metaplex-nft_mintNFT or metaplex-nft_deployCollection, which have distinct purposes.

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 usage context, including workflows for collection, mint, metadata, royalty, and authority operations, and advises confirming certain fields before writes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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.

Metaplex-nft Update Metadata

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources