SAP MCP Server

Resolve SAP MCP Next Action

sap_agent_next_action

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free routing resolver for SAP MCP errors and partial results. Use this before retrying after payment_required, hosted_local_signer_required, BlockhashNotFound, missing sap_payments, timeout, or a submitted signature that has not confirmed.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: agent bootstrap, routing, skills, or repair guidance. Pricing: free; call directly without x402. Routing: free hosted call; call directly and keep it small/exact when possible. Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`intent`	No	Current user intent or workflow area.
`toolName`	No	Tool that produced the error or partial result, for example sap_register_agent, sap_update_agent, or sap_create_escrow_v2.
`errorCode`	No	Machine error code when available, for example hosted_local_signer_required, payment_required, BlockhashNotFound, or expired_or_not_landed.
`errorMessage`	No	Human or structured error message returned by the runtime, hosted server, local bridge, or wallet/RPC layer.
`hasSignature`	No	True when a transaction signature was already produced or submitted. This prevents unsafe duplicate retries.
`paymentRequired`	No	True when the previous response was an x402/pay.sh payment challenge.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`success`	Yes	Whether the resolver produced guidance.
`nextTool`	Yes	Exact preferred next SAP MCP tool, or null when user/runtime action is needed.
`retryable`	Yes	Whether the underlying issue can generally be retried.
`nextAction`	Yes	Concrete next action for the agent.
`userMessage`	Yes	Short user-facing explanation.
`classification`	Yes	Normalized error or routing classification.
`paymentCharged`	Yes	Best-effort payment status: no, unknown, possible, or yes.
`safeToRetryNow`	Yes	Whether the agent should retry immediately without risking duplicate writes or duplicate user charges.
`forbiddenActions`	Yes	Actions the agent must not take for this case.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating it is 'free' and providing signer boundary details ('hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally'). This context is not in annotations.

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?

Two paragraphs: the first states purpose and when to use; the second provides execution guidance. It is concise and well-structured, though the input schema repeats the guidance text. No unnecessary sentences.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no required params, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is complete. It explains purpose, exact use cases, pricing, routing, and security boundaries. An agent would understand exactly when and how to invoke this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 clearly states it is a 'Free routing resolver for SAP MCP errors and partial results' and lists specific error scenarios. The title 'Resolve SAP MCP Next Action' complements this. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool serves as a universal error resolver.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this before retrying after' and enumerates exact error codes like payment_required, hosted_local_signer_required, etc. It also provides SAP MCP execution guidance on pricing, routing, and signer boundary, giving clear when-to-use and contextual rules.

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.

Resolve SAP MCP Next Action

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources