Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Build SAP Escrow V2 Create Transaction

sap_escrow_build_create_transaction

Hosted-safe unsigned builder for create_escrow_v2. Use this from hosted SAP MCP, preview the result, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true. The depositorWallet signs locally; keypair bytes never leave the user machine. Defaults to DisputeWindow settlementSecurity=2 and rejects SelfReport/0. SAP MCP context: Hosted-safe unsigned Escrow V2 builder. The output is not submitted and is not signed by hosted SAP MCP. Preview it, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true and confirm:true. Never create temporary signing scripts or read keypair JSON.

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: hosted-safe builder. If a transaction is returned, preview/sign/submit with sap_payments_finalize_transaction; never create temporary signing scripts. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceNoOptional escrow nonce as a decimal string. Defaults to 0.
arbiterNoOptional arbiter public key kept for IDL compatibility and dispute workflows.
coSignerNoRequired co-signer wallet public key when settlementSecurity=1 (CoSigned).
maxCallsNoMaximum number of calls covered by the escrow as a decimal string. Use 0 for unlimited when supported by policy.
expiresAtNoOptional expiry timestamp in unix seconds as a decimal string. Defaults to 0 (no expiry).
tokenMintNoOptional SPL payment token mint. Omit/null for native SOL. Use EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v for mainnet USDC x402 escrows.
agentWalletNoAgent owner wallet public key (base58). The V2 escrow PDA is derived from this wallet plus nonce.
pricePerCallNoPrice 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.
tokenDecimalsNoPayment token decimals. Defaults to 6 when tokenMint is set, otherwise 9 for native SOL.
initialDepositNoInitial 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.
depositorWalletNoDepositor wallet public key (base58). This wallet signs locally and funds the escrow; hosted SAP MCP never receives its private key.
disputeWindowSlotsNoRequired positive dispute window in slots for settlementSecurity=2. Defaults to 2160 (~15 minutes).
settlementSecurityNoV2 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMCP content blocks returned to the caller.
isErrorNoTrue when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the depositor signs locally, keypair bytes never leave the user machine, defaults to DisputeWindow settlementSecurity=2, rejects SelfReport/0, and that the output is not submitted or signed by hosted SAP MCP. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and adds critical behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with an initial summary, then usage flow, defaults, and a dedicated 'SAP MCP execution guidance' section. While it is somewhat repetitive (e.g., mentioning local finalization multiple times), every sentence contributes to clarity. It could be slightly trimmed without loss.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is complex (13 parameters, all optional) and there is an output schema. The description covers the entire workflow: hosted build, local signing and finalization, parameter defaults and constraints, pricing, and security boundaries. It leaves no critical gaps for an AI agent to understand correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 value by explaining units (lamports, micro-USDC), providing examples for tokenMint (EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v for USDC), and clarifying that V2 escrow PDA is derived from agentWallet plus nonce. However, some parameter descriptions are already detailed in the schema, so the added value is moderate.

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 it is a 'hosted-safe unsigned builder for create_escrow_v2', specifying the verb (build), resource (create_escrow_v2), and scope (unsigned, hosted-safe). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing that the output is not submitted and requires local finalization.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this from hosted SAP MCP, preview the result, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true.' It also warns against creating temporary signing scripts or reading keypair JSON, and notes pricing as a paid builder. This clearly tells when and how to use the tool, and what not to do.

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