Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Validate Premium Plugin Manifest

sap_premium_validate_plugin_manifest

Free manifest validator for SAP MCP premium plugins. Validates ids, semver, descriptions, strict input/output schemas, x402/pay.sh pricing policies, and delivery contracts. It never executes plugin code or loads 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manifestYesPremium plugin manifest candidate to validate before publishing or loading from a private plugin directory.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
validYesTrue only when the manifest can be safely reviewed for premium plugin loading.
errorsYesBlocking manifest issues. Do not load or publish the plugin until empty.
warningsYesNon-blocking quality issues that should be fixed before marketplace publication.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it 'never executes plugin code or loads provider secrets,' which is valuable safety information. However, it doesn't explain why idempotentHint is false (it likely is idempotent) or describe other behaviors like rate limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two efficient paragraphs: first states purpose and exclusions, second provides execution guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 one complex parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, specifics, safety, and usage context. It lacks explicit detail about the output, but the output schema handles that. Sufficient for a validation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds specific details about what aspects are validated (ids, semver, etc.), which goes beyond the schema's generic description of 'Premium plugin manifest candidate.' This provides richer semantics for the AI agent.

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 it's a 'Free manifest validator for SAP MCP premium plugins' and lists exactly what it validates (ids, semver, descriptions, schemas, pricing policies, delivery contracts). This distinguishes it from siblings, none of which perform this specific validation.

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 provides explicit execution guidance: 'Pricing: free; call directly without x402' and 'Routing: free hosted call; call directly and keep it small/exact.' It implies use before publishing or loading. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the unique purpose makes alternatives clear.

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