Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Build SAP Escrow V2 Deposit Transaction

sap_escrow_build_deposit_transaction

Hosted-safe unsigned builder for deposit_escrow_v2. Use this when a hosted workflow needs to add funds to an existing V2 escrow, then finalize locally with sap_payments_finalize_transaction. 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.
amountNoDeposit amount 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.
agentWalletNoAgent owner wallet public key (base58). The escrow PDA is derived from agentWallet, depositorWallet, and nonce.
depositorWalletNoDepositor wallet public key (base58). This wallet signs locally and provides the additional escrow funds.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMCP content blocks returned to the caller.
isErrorNoTrue 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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it is an unsigned builder (output not submitted), hosted-safe, pricing implications, and signer boundary. Annotations only provide basic hints, so the description carries the burden. It lacks explicit mention of the response format (unsigned transaction) but provides workflow guidance.

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 somewhat verbose with repeated guidance about not creating temporary scripts and the signer boundary. While front-loaded with purpose, it could be more concise. The structure mixes purpose, workflow, and warnings, which is acceptable but not optimal.

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 (4 parameters, output schema, many sibling tools), the description covers the essential workflow, distinguishes from alternatives, and explains the signing boundary. It mentions pricing and estimation. However, it could be more explicit about the return object (unsigned transaction) and the exact local finalization steps.

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 does not add any additional information about individual parameters; it only reiterates the overall intent. The schema descriptions already cover the parameters adequately.

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 is a 'Hosted-safe unsigned builder for deposit_escrow_v2.' It specifies the verb (build) and resource (deposit_escrow_v2), and the context distinguishes it from sibling 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 explicitly states when to use: 'when a hosted workflow needs to add funds to an existing V2 escrow.' It provides a clear workflow: build, preview, then finalize locally with sap_payments_finalize_transaction. It also warns against creating temporary scripts.

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