Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

sap adrena build close long

sap_adrena_build_close_long
Destructive

Build an unsigned transaction to close a long perp position on Adrena. Default closes 100% at market price. Returns transactionBase64 only after builder-side RPC simulation passes. Show approval only when safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false; otherwise do not call finalize.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: hosted unsigned transaction builder. Pricing: paid builder; estimate first, then pay/build and finalize unsigned transactions locally when returned. Routing: paid hosted call; call sap_estimate_tool_cost first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if the runtime cannot handle x402 natively. Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesPosition owner wallet public key (base58).
priceUsdNoOptional close price in USD. Omit for market close.
percentageNoPercentage to close (0-1000000, where 1000000 = 100%). Default 1000000.
principalTokenYesAsset of the position. Supported: JITOSOL, WBTC, BONK.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical behavior beyond the annotations: it returns transactionBase64 only after builder-side RPC simulation passes, emphasizes that signer bytes never leave the hosted environment, and instructs the agent on safe approval/finalize conditions. These details are highly valuable and align with rather than contradict the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening two sentences are concise and informative, but the description then repeats the large SAP MCP execution guidance block that also appears verbatim in the input schema description. This duplication adds unnecessary length, though it is still structured and readable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a paid unsigned-transaction builder, the description covers all essential operational aspects: what it does, the return condition, approval safety, pricing/routing steps, and the signer boundary. Given the output schema exists and the description so thoroughly frames the tool's contract, nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, the description enriches understanding by clarifying the default close percentage and that priceUsd can be omitted for a market close. This helps the agent interpret the optional priceUsd and percentage parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb (build), a clear resource (unsigned transaction to close a long perp position on Adrena), and key default behavior (100% at market price). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as close_short or adrena_closePosition.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to close a long perp position on Adrena) and provides post-call guidance (show approval only when safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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