SAP MCP Server

Create SAP Escrow V2

sap_create_escrow_v2

Local-signer-only direct V2 escrow creation using SDK EscrowV2Module.create. Defaults to DisputeWindow settlementSecurity=2; SelfReport/0 is rejected. Hosted accountless SAP MCP rejects this before x402 payment; hosted users should call sap_escrow_build_create_transaction and finalize locally. SAP MCP context: Payment and settlement flow. Estimate or fetch state before creating escrows or settling calls; write operations require an enabled signer mode and MCP policy approval.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: paid value-action; preview cost and transaction effects before user confirmation. Routing: hosted accountless write is blocked; do not call this as a paid hosted write and no x402 payment should be charged. Use the local sap_payments bridge or a hosted unsigned builder when user signing is required. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	No	Optional escrow nonce as a decimal string. Defaults to 0.
`arbiter`	No	Optional arbiter public key kept for IDL compatibility and dispute workflows.
`coSigner`	No	Required co-signer wallet public key when settlementSecurity=1 (CoSigned).
`maxCalls`	No	Maximum number of calls covered by the escrow as a decimal string. Use 0 for unlimited when supported by policy.
`expiresAt`	No	Optional expiry timestamp in unix seconds as a decimal string. Defaults to 0 (no expiry).
`tokenMint`	No	Optional SPL payment token mint. Omit/null for native SOL. Use EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v for mainnet USDC x402 escrows.
`agentWallet`	No	Agent owner wallet public key (base58). The V2 escrow PDA is derived from this wallet plus nonce.
`pricePerCall`	No	Price per served call as a decimal string. Amount in the escrow token smallest unit: lamports for SOL, micro-USDC for USDC, or base units for the configured SPL token.
`tokenDecimals`	No	Payment token decimals. Defaults to 6 when tokenMint is set, otherwise 9 for native SOL.
`initialDeposit`	No	Initial escrow deposit as a decimal string. Amount in the escrow token smallest unit: lamports for SOL, micro-USDC for USDC, or base units for the configured SPL token.
`disputeWindowSlots`	No	Required positive dispute window in slots for settlementSecurity=2. Defaults to 2160 (~15 minutes).
`settlementSecurity`	No	V2 settlement security mode. 1=CoSigned (requires coSigner). 2=DisputeWindow (recommended default; requires disputeWindowSlots > 0). SelfReport/0 is deprecated and rejected on-chain.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	MCP content blocks returned to the caller.
`isError`	No	True when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds specific behavioral details: defaults to DisputeWindow settlementSecurity=2, SelfReport/0 is rejected, and notes signer boundaries and MCP policy approval. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose and contains repetitive guidance about routing and signer boundaries. It could be more concise while retaining key information.

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 (12 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main constraints, use cases, and alternatives adequately. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some high-level context (e.g., 'The V2 escrow PDA is derived from this wallet plus nonce') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states it is for 'Local-signer-only direct V2 escrow creation using SDK EscrowV2Module.create'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that 'SelfReport/0 is rejected' and directs hosted users to alternative tools like sap_escrow_build_create_transaction.

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?

The description clearly states when to use (local signer) and when not to use (hosted accountless before x402 payment). It provides explicit alternatives: 'hosted users should call sap_escrow_build_create_transaction and finalize locally' and advises to 'Use the local sap_payments bridge or a hosted unsigned builder when user signing is required'.

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.

Create SAP Escrow V2

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources