Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Register Premium Webhook

sap_premium_webhook_register

Registers an HTTPS webhook target for signed premium event delivery. The session must be active (activated via sap_premium_activate_session). The target URL must be HTTPS, reachable, and not a private/localhost endpoint in production. Events are filtered to the exact event ids listed in the request.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: local-signer write 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
eventsYesExact event ids to deliver, from the capability delivery contract.
sessionIdYesActive premium session id.
targetUrlYesHTTPS webhook endpoint owned by the buyer. Localhost and private network URLs are rejected in production.
signingPublicKeyNoOptional buyer public key for webhook signature verification.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subscriptionYesWebhook subscription record with subscriptionId, targetUrl, events, and delivery stats.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness. The description adds context about session activation and URL constraints but does not disclose rate limits, side effects, or idempotency behavior beyond the annotation.

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 first paragraph is concise and front-loaded, but the second paragraph contains redundant boilerplate from the input schema, making the description longer than necessary.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers prerequisites, constraints, and behavior. The execution guidance adds operational context, though it is somewhat out of place. Overall, it is fairly complete for a registration tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some nuance (e.g., URL must be HTTPS, events exact IDs) but does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool registers an HTTPS webhook for signed premium event delivery, specifying key constraints (HTTPS, session active, exact event IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like unregister/status, though explicit differentiation is absent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description lists prerequisites (session active, URL constraints) and includes execution guidance about pricing and routing. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide comparative 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