Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Fetch SAP Session

sap_fetch_session
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a session ledger by session PDA. SAP MCP context: Read-only SAP SDK wrapper against the configured Solana RPC and SAP program. Use these reads to inspect current chain state before mutating registry, payment, reputation, memory, or tool accounts.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: read/discovery 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionPdaNoSession PDA (base58) to fetch the ledger for

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
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations confirming read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable details: mentions it is a 'Read-only SAP SDK wrapper against the configured Solana RPC and SAP program', clarifies signer boundary (never receives keypair bytes), and explains payment routing. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose but includes repetitive execution guidance also present in the input schema (e.g., intent, pricing, routing). This redundancy reduces conciseness and structural clarity.

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 existence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context well. It explains where the tool fits in the SAP workflow (pre-mutation inspection) and payment handling, though it could briefly mention the output shape.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'sessionPda'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 'Fetch a session ledger by session PDA', specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling fetch tools by focusing on 'session ledger' and 'session PDA', making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides context like 'Read-only SAP SDK wrapper' and 'use these reads to inspect current chain state before mutating...'. It gives intent ('read/discovery workflow') and pricing guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other fetch tools or state when not to use it.

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