Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Metaplex-nft Verify Collection

metaplex-nft_verifyCollection

Verify an NFT as part of a collection. 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 to verify
collectionYesCollection mint
collectionAuthorityYesCollection authority wallet

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
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'operation class write' but does not explain that this tool modifies on-chain state, requires a signed transaction, or incurs cost. The extensive SAP MCP context overshadows basic behavioral disclosure.

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 with repetitive SAP MCP boilerplate that is not specific to this tool. The first sentence is effective, but the remainder is verbose and includes irrelevant context, making it inefficient for agent consumption.

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 write nature and existence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or the on-chain effects. It omits critical details such as transaction flow, signer requirements, and state changes, relying instead on generic SAP MCP instructions.

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 basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 explicitly states 'Verify an NFT as part of a collection,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. The tool name and title confirm this, and the context mentions 'collection verification,' differentiating it from sibling tools like setAndVerifyCollection and verifyCreator.

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 general guidance on prerequisites (confirm metadata URI, collection mint, etc.) and mentions using Metaplex tools for NFTs, but it lacks explicit differentiation from alternatives like setAndVerifyCollection. It does not clearly state when to use this tool versus other verification 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 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