Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

SAP Chat Start Room

sap_chat_start_room

Start an on-chain SAP chat room by creating the backing vault, session, and ledger if needed.

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: 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
topicNoThematic topic, for example openbook:sol-usdc:market-makers or sap:registry:discovery.
roomIdNoOptional explicit room ID. If omitted, one is derived deterministically.
roomKindNoChat room kind: dm, group, or room.
roomNameNoHuman-readable room name for public thematic rooms.
participantsNoParticipant agent/wallet identifiers for DM or group rooms.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the writing behavior is expected. The description adds that it creates vault, session, and ledger, which provides context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., idempotency, cost implications) or further behavioral traits.

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 key behavioral sentence is front-loaded, but the description includes a large block of generic SAP guidance that is not tool-specific, adding unnecessary length. This makes it less concise than ideal.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of the tool (creating on-chain entities), the description is minimal. It omits prerequisites, error conditions, and expected outcomes. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but operational context is lacking.

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% as all 5 parameters are described. The description does not add additional meaning or examples for parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Start an on-chain SAP chat room by creating the backing vault, session, and ledger if needed.' This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from other chat tools like sap_chat_send_message or sap_chat_seal_room.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. The boilerplate SAP MCP execution guidance does not clarify scenarios for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sap_chat_derive_room). No mention of prerequisites or when not to use 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