Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Register Premium Webhook Relay (Buffer-Only)

sap_premium_webhook_relay

Registers a buffer-only webhook subscription for an active premium session. Unlike sap_premium_webhook_register, this does not require a public HTTPS endpoint — events matching the subscription are buffered server-side in the event store and the agent consumes them via sap_premium_stream_poll or sap_premium_stream_flush. Use this when the agent runs locally or behind NAT and cannot expose a publicly reachable HTTPS callback URL. The session must be active (activated via sap_premium_activate_session). Events are filtered to the exact event ids listed in the request.

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
eventsYesExact event ids to buffer and deliver via poll/flush. At least one event id is required.
filtersNoOptional narrow filters applied to the provider subscription, forwarded to the delivery loop.
sessionIdYesActive premium session id to buffer webhook events for.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
consumptionYesConsumption guidance listing the poll and flush tool names the agent should use to drain the buffer.
subscriptionYesRelay webhook subscription record with subscriptionId, targetUrl (relay://buffer), events, and delivery stats. Null if registration failed.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about buffering server-side and event filtering, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or consequences of misuse. With annotations providing minimal safety info, the description does not fully compensate.

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 main description is concise and front-loaded, but the execution guidance block at the end is repetitive boilerplate also present in the schema. This adds unnecessary length. The core information is clear, but the extra content reduces conciseness.

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 has an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It explains the buffering mechanism, when to use the tool, and prerequisites. However, it omits error handling and detailed return value expectations, though the output schema partially mitigates this.

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 3 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter (e.g., 'exact event ids to buffer and deliver via poll/flush') and providing usage context (e.g., 'session must be active'). This enhances understanding without redundancy.

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 registers a buffer-only webhook subscription for an active premium session. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool sap_premium_webhook_register by noting no public HTTPS endpoint is needed, providing a specific verb-resource pair with clear scope.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (agent runs locally or behind NAT) and mentions the alternative (sap_premium_webhook_register). It also specifies prerequisites (session must be active, exact event ids). However, it could more explicitly state when NOT to use it (i.e., if a public endpoint is available).

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