Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Deposit SAP Stake

sap_deposit_stake

Deposit additional stake for an agent wallet. SAP MCP context: SAP protocol staking flow. Confirm agent wallet, amount, and unstake timing before writes; this is distinct from external AgentKit staking protocol tools.

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountNoAdditional stake deposit amount in lamports (as a decimal string)
agentWalletNoAgent wallet public key (base58)

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a non-destructive write. The description adds valuable context: pricing (paid value-action, preview cost), routing (blocked as hosted accountless write), signer boundary (user-controlled), and OOBE non-custodial nature. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not describe success/failure behavior.

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 with boilerplate about SAP MCP context and execution guidance, which may be repeated across tools. It includes two paragraphs, some of which is generic rather than tool-specific, reducing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers purpose, usage precautions, and execution constraints. However, it lacks explicit guidance on how this tool relates to sibling SAP staking tools (e.g., sap_init_stake, sap_fetch_stake) and does not mention output schema details. Output schema exists, partially mitigating need for return value explanation.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (amount in lamports as decimal string, agent wallet public key). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds only generic advice to confirm details, not additional parameter-specific meaning.

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 'Deposit additional stake for an agent wallet,' specifying the verb (deposit) and resource (stake for an agent wallet). It also distinguishes from external AgentKit staking tools, providing clear purpose and differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description advises confirming wallet, amount, and unstake timing before writes, and notes distinction from AgentKit tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus internal SAP staking tools like sap_init_stake or sap_complete_unstake, leaving some ambiguity.

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