SAP MCP Server

Check SAP MCP Runtime Status

sap_agent_runtime_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free machine-readable readiness and routing summary for SAP MCP. Use this for "are you connected?", paid/write readiness, local profile visibility, and exact next actions without dumping the whole tool catalog.

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	Default
`intent`	No	Optional user intent so the status can highlight the correct next tool path.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hosted`	Yes	Observable hosted SAP MCP status for this server process.
`intent`	Yes	Status intent used for routing.
`routing`	Yes	Canonical tool routes for reads, paid calls, writes, and unsigned transactions.
`success`	Yes	Whether runtime status was generated.
`localBridge`	Yes	Expected local sap_payments bridge status and verification tools.
`toolCatalog`	Yes	Secret-free modular tool catalog summary generated from registered tool modules, or null before registration summary is available.
`nextToolCalls`	Yes	Exact next tool calls agents should make when available.
`runtimeDoctor`	Yes	Secret-free local runtime doctor report generated from the active server config. Includes pass/warning/fail checks for profile, signer, wallet path presence, policy limits, RPC, and paid/write readiness without keypair bytes.
`forbiddenActions`	Yes	Actions agents must not perform.
`userFacingSummary`	Yes	Short summary safe to show to the user.
`sessionContextPacket`	Yes	Machine-readable SAP MCP routing, freshness, memory, proof-tape, and forbidden-action rules for this intent.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: pricing model, routing details, signer boundary constraints, and the fact that output is machine-readable. No contradictions with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage scenarios and then execution guidance. It is somewhat verbose due to repetition of the same guidance in the schema, but every sentence adds context. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, pricing, routing, and signer boundary. With an output schema present, explaining return values is unnecessary. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to call this tool, though it could elaborate on what 'readiness' specifically includes (e.g., agent health, network status).

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 schema coverage is 100% and the input schema's description duplicates the guidance in the tool description. The tool description does not add new semantics for the 'intent' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 tool name and title are clear, and the description states 'Free machine-readable readiness and routing summary for SAP MCP' with specific use cases like 'are you connected?', distinguishing it from sibling tools that might dump the whole tool catalog. The verb 'Check' and resource 'Runtime Status' are explicit.

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 provides explicit scenarios for when to use the tool: checking connection, paid/write readiness, local profile visibility, and next actions. It also gives routing and pricing guidance ('free; call directly without x402'). However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related siblings like sap_agent_context or sap_agent_next_action, which may overlap in purpose.

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.

Check SAP MCP Runtime Status

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources