SAP MCP Server

FairScale Trust Gate

sap_fairscale_trust_gate

Evaluate an agent with SDK FairScaleRegistry.trustGate. SAP MCP context: Reputation and trust flow. Use after verifying the target agent PDA or wallet and keep hashes/attestation metadata stable and auditable.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: paid read-premium; estimate first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool when the runtime cannot replay x402 natively. Routing: paid hosted call; call sap_estimate_tool_cost first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if the runtime cannot handle x402 natively. Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent`	No	Agent PDA or wallet (base58) to evaluate
`minScore`	No	Optional minimum trust score threshold
`requireVerification`	No	Whether verified status is required to pass the gate (default: false)

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 24, 2026

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"FairScale Trust Gate input schema. Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: paid read-premium; estimate first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool when the runtime cannot replay x402 natively. Routing: paid hosted call; call sap_estimate_tool_cost first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if the runtime cannot handle x402 natively. Signer boundary: hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes; value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required. Use exact field names from this schema; do not guess aliases or include private key material."

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description claims 'paid read-premium' but the annotations mark readOnlyHint as false, implying side effects. This contradiction undermines transparency. The tool's behavioral traits (e.g., whether it mutates state, requires auth, or has rate limits) are not disclosed. The generic guidance about signer boundaries is copied but not tailored to this tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is bloated with repetitive SAP MCP execution guidance that appears verbatim in both the description and schema description. The tool-specific part is only two sentences; the rest is generic and wasteful. This harms readability and efficiency.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a trust evaluation tool, the description fails to explain what a 'trust gate' is, how it works, or what the output signifies. While an output schema exists, the description should provide conceptual framing. The generic guidance does not compensate for this lack of domain-specific completeness.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema—only generic advice to use exact field names. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The tool's purpose is stated as 'Evaluate an agent with SDK FairScaleRegistry.trustGate', which gives a verb and resource. However, the description is vague about what 'evaluate' entails (e.g., checking a trust score) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'sap_fairscale_score'. The SAP MCP context adds little clarity.

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 to use after verifying the target and to keep metadata stable, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives like sap_fairscale_score. The generic MCP execution guidance is about payment flow, not usage choices.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.