SAP MCP Server

Build Premium Plugin Template

sap_premium_plugin_template

Free premium plugin manifest builder. Generates a strict, data-only stream/webhook/tool manifest template that teams can place in a private plugin subrepo, validate, plug, and unplug without executing untrusted code or exposing provider secrets.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: free; call directly without x402. Routing: free hosted call; call directly and keep it small/exact when possible. 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
`title`	No	Human-readable plugin and capability title shown to agent runtimes.
`pluginId`	Yes	Lowercase premium plugin id, for example sap-premium-custom-alpha. This becomes the manifest id.
`publisher`	No	Publisher name used for enterprise review and marketplace metadata.
`visibility`	No	Discovery visibility. Use private or enterprise for non-public provider contracts.
`description`	No	Full agent-facing description explaining the use case, provider boundary, pricing model, and what the capability delivers.
`providerEnv`	No	Uppercase provider env var names required to make the capability live. Do not pass secret values.
`capabilityId`	Yes	Lowercase capability id, for example custom.signal.stream or custom:tool:score.
`unitPriceUsd`	No	Suggested x402/pay.sh unit price in USD. Agents should see pricing before activation.
`capabilityType`	Yes	Capability type to template: stream, webhook, or tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`manifest`	Yes	Data-only premium plugin manifest template. Review, harden schemas, then store it in the private plugin subrepo.
`nextSteps`	Yes	Operator steps for validating, plugging, unplugging, and safely exposing this plugin.
`validation`	Yes	Validation report for the generated template.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description explains that the tool generates manifests without executing untrusted code or exposing provider secrets, and clarifies that hosted builders never receive keypair bytes. This adds valuable security context not present in 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 contains redundant execution guidance that also appears in the schema's description. While the first sentence is direct, the additional text could be streamlined for better conciseness without losing essential information.

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 an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, security boundary, and free pricing. It is complete enough for an agent to understand usage without missing key aspects.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add new details about individual parameters; the execution guidance is generic. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 builds premium plugin manifests, specifying it generates strict, data-only stream/webhook/tool manifest templates. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like other premium operations.

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 includes SAP MCP execution guidance indicating free pricing, direct calling without x402, and hosted build behavior. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list 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 tools Inspect

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.

Build Premium Plugin Template

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources