Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Build SPL Token Transfer Transaction

sap_build_spl_transfer

Build an unsigned SPL token transfer transaction. Returns serialized base64 transaction for the agent to sign locally with sap_payments_finalize_transaction or sap_sign_transaction → sap_submit_signed_transaction. This is the hosted-safe equivalent of spl-token_transfer (which is local-signer-only and cannot run on the hosted accountless server). Builder fee applies.

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
mintNoSPL token mint address in base58.
amountNoAmount of tokens to transfer in base units (respect the mint decimals).
decimalsNoToken decimals for the mint. Used for display purposes only — the on-chain amount is in base units.
sourceOwnerNoSource token account owner public key in base58. This is the fee payer and must sign the transaction locally.
destinationOwnerNoDestination wallet public key in base58. The destination ATA will be created if it does not exist.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns an unsigned transaction for local signing, builder fee applies, and it clarifies the signing boundary (no keypair bytes received). This compensates for the minimal 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 description is verbose and includes repetitive 'SAP MCP execution guidance' that also appears in the input schema. While front-loaded with key purpose, it could be more concise. Every sentence is not earning its place.

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 complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists, many sibling tools), the description covers the complete workflow: estimate, pay, build, sign locally, submit. It also clarifies the signing boundary and hosted vs local differentiation. No major gaps.

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% and each parameter already has clear documentation. The tool description reiterates some points (e.g., destination ATA creation) but does not add significant new parameter-level information beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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 'Build an unsigned SPL token transfer transaction' and distinguishes it from the local-only 'spl-token_transfer' sibling. It specifies the return format (serialized base64) and the workflow for signing locally.

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 strong context: it is the hosted-safe alternative to spl-token_transfer (which cannot run on hosted accountless servers). It also outlines the required workflow: estimate cost, pay/build, then finalize locally. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives.

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