Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Build SAP Escrow V2 Finalize Transaction

sap_escrow_build_finalize_transaction

Hosted-safe unsigned builder for finalize_settlement. Use after the dispute window has elapsed and a pending settlement exists; any payerWallet can locally sign to crank finalization. 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.
agentWalletNoAgent owner wallet public key (base58).
payerWalletNoWallet public key (base58) that signs and pays transaction fees to finalize the pending settlement.
depositorWalletNoDepositor wallet public key (base58).
settlementIndexNoPending settlement index as a decimal string.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations lacking behavioral detail, the description clearly explains the tool's behavior: it builds an unsigned transaction, the output is not submitted or signed, and it is hosted-safe. It adds context about pricing and the need for local signing, which annotations do not cover.

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 redundant phrases like 'SAP MCP context' and 'SAP MCP execution guidance' repeating similar guidance. A more concise structure with clear sections would improve readability.

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 that an output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description covers the intended usage, prerequisites, and post-processing steps. It does not address error scenarios or edge cases, but is sufficiently complete for a builder tool.

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 covers all 5 parameters with good descriptions. The description reinforces the roles (e.g., 'payerWallet signs and pays transaction fees') and warns against guessing aliases. While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value above the schema's own param 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 clearly states it is a 'hosted-safe unsigned builder for finalize_settlement', specifying both the action (build) and the resource (finalize_settlement). It distinguishes from sibling escrow builders by mentioning 'finalize_settlement' and providing context about when to use it.

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?

Description explicitly advises using this tool 'after the dispute window has elapsed and a pending settlement exists'. It provides step-by-step instructions: 'Preview it, then call local sap_payments_finalize_transaction with submit:true and confirm:true'. It also warns against creating temporary scripts or reading keypair.

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