Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Fund Prepaid Payment Session

sap_payments_fund_prepaid

Hosted paid tool that creates a prepaid session. The x402 charge for this tool IS the funding deposit. After settlement, creates a prepaid credit session with the specified amount and per-call cost. Returns sessionId, remainingUsd, and expiresAt. Pass the returned sessionId as prepaidSessionId to sap_payments_call_paid_tool for future calls to bypass per-call 402 challenges (x402 Lifecycle Hooks grantAccess pattern).

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: local non-custodial payment/signing bridge. Pricing: paid value-action; preview cost and transaction effects before user confirmation. Routing: local sap_payments bridge. It may sign x402 payment payloads or user-approved transactions locally, and must never expose keypair bytes. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ttlHoursNoSession TTL in hours. Defaults to 24.
amountUsdYesTotal USDC to deposit into the prepaid session. This amount is charged via x402 when calling this tool.
perCallCostUsdNoCost deducted from the prepaid balance per granted call. Defaults to 0.015 USD.

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that it is a hosted paid tool, charges via x402, creates a prepaid credit session, returns sessionId/remainingUsd/expiresAt, and includes security guidance (non-custodial, no keypair exposure). Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) align, and no contradictions.

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 contains two paragraphs; the second 'SAP MCP execution guidance' is verbose and somewhat redundant with schema description, reducing conciseness. Could be streamlined.

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?

Given the input schema (3 params), output schema (return values mentioned), and annotations, the description provides sufficient context including workflow, pricing, security, and expected outputs.

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%, and the description restates parameter purposes but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a prepaid payment session, with verb 'creates' and resource 'prepaid session'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sap_payments_call_paid_tool by explaining the workflow.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool (to fund a prepaid session and bypass per-call x402 challenges) and mentions the follow-up tool (sap_payments_call_paid_tool). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives.

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