Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Activate Premium Session

sap_premium_activate_session

Activates a pending premium session with a verified x402/pay.sh payment receipt. This tool is FREE — it does not charge x402. The paymentReceipt must be the actual Solana transaction signature (tx hash) from the x402 facilitator settlement, NOT "pending" or any placeholder. Flow: 1) sap_premium_session_start creates a pending session (free). 2) The x402 challenge is settled via the local bridge (sap_payments_call_paid_tool or direct facilitator payment) — the facilitator returns a tx signature. 3) Pass that tx signature as paymentReceipt to this tool. Do NOT pass "pending" — it will always be rejected and waste a tool call.

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesPremium session id returned by sap_premium_session_start.
payerAddressNoOptional Solana payer public key for audit binding.
paymentReceiptYesThe Solana transaction signature (tx hash) from the x402 facilitator settlement. NOT "pending" — must be the real tx hash like "3ozKaRujGGymu3s9q67qfwfG21s2BpjJQ5zEEFCWen1u...". Get this by settling the payment challenge first, then pass the returned signature here.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activationYesActivation result with status, activatedAt, receiptBound, unitsQuota, and reason.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool is FREE, does not charge x402, and that passing 'pending' will always be rejected. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description complements these with concrete details about the activation process and cost, fulfilling the transparency requirement.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear flow and bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. However, it includes a repetitive 'SAP MCP execution guidance' block that may be boilerplate. While not overly verbose, it could be slightly more concise. Still effective.

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 tool's role in a multi-step premium session workflow, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites (session start, payment settlement), input requirements, expected behavior, and error conditions. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The sibling tools list provides context, and the description integrates well with the workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description adds value by providing examples and clarifying constraints (e.g., 'paymentReceipt' must be a real tx hash, not 'pending'). The description elaborates on the parameters' roles in the workflow, making their semantics clearer than the schema alone.

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 purpose: 'Activates a pending premium session with a verified x402/pay.sh payment receipt.' It uses a specific verb ('activate') and resource ('premium session'), and distinguishes it from siblings like sap_premium_session_start (creates pending session) and sap_premium_session_status (checks status).

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 provides explicit step-by-step guidance on when to use this tool: after starting a session and receiving a payment receipt. It explicitly warns against passing 'pending' and explains the flow (1, 2, 3). It also includes SAP MCP execution guidance about pricing and routing, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool vs 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