Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Raydium-pools Create A M Mv4

raydium-pools_createAMMv4

Create a Raydium AMM v4 pool (requires an existing Openbook market). SAP MCP context: This Synapse AgentKit tool is served beside the sap_* SDK tools. Use sap_agent_identity_plan, sap_payments_register_agent, sap_payments_update_agent, and sap_publish_tool_by_name when the capability should become part of an on-chain SAP agent profile or tool registry entry.

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
creatorYesSolana public key (base58)
marketIdYesOpenbook market ID
startTimeNoStart Time parameter for Raydium-pools Create A M Mv4.
baseAmountYesRaw token amount (smallest unit)
quoteAmountYesRaw token amount (smallest unit)

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only nor destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that this is a write operation requiring an existing market, and the SAP MCP guidance details payment and signing boundaries. It does not describe all potential side effects (e.g., error on duplicate pool) but provides significant supplementary info.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent SAP MCP context and execution guidance are structured under clear headings. While lengthy, every section serves a purpose for the intended environment. A minor deduction for the repeated SAP boilerplate that could potentially be condensed.

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 tool's complexity (creating a pool, prerequisite, paid execution), the description covers the prerequisite (Openbook market), the payment flow and signing requirements, and references the output schema (exists). It does not elaborate on the startTime parameter or error handling, but overall it provides the essential context for safe and correct usage in the SAP MCP environment.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little per-parameter meaning: it mentions 'requires an existing Openbook market' (relating to marketId) and the first sentence implies the nature of baseAmount/quoteAmount as raw tokens. However, startTime's description is tautological ('Start Time parameter for...'), and no additional formatting or constraints are explained. The tool description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Create a Raydium AMM v4 pool (requires an existing Openbook market)', which clearly states the action (create) and the specific resource (Raydium AMM v4 pool) with a prerequisite. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like raydium-pools_createCLMM or raydium-pools_createCPMM by the pool type.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states the prerequisite of an existing Openbook market, which is useful for knowing when to use this tool. The extensive SAP MCP guidance provides context on pricing, routing, and signing requirements, but does not directly compare with other raydium-pools creation tools (e.g., CLMM vs CPMM). The guidance is clear for the intended platform, missing only direct alternatives guidance.

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