Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Premium Webhook Relay Status

sap_premium_webhook_relay_status

Returns the status of buffer-only (relay) webhook subscriptions for a session, including the relay configuration, buffered event count, and per-subscription delivery stats. Use this to check how many events are waiting in the server-side buffer before calling sap_premium_stream_poll or sap_premium_stream_flush to consume them.

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
sessionIdYesPremium session id to inspect relay subscriptions and buffered event counts for.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesThe session id that was queried.
sessionStatusYesCurrent session status (active, closed, pending_payment, not_found).
bufferedEventCountYesTotal number of events currently buffered in the event store for this session (across all relay subscriptions).
relaySubscriptionsYesActive relay (buffer-only) webhook subscriptions for the session.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Description indicates a read-only status check, but annotations have readOnlyHint=false, creating a contradiction. No mention of side effects or required permissions beyond boilerplate. The boilerplate about pricing and routing adds some context but not enough to compensate for the contradiction.

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 two sentences are clear and front-loaded, but the boilerplate at the end (SAP MCP execution guidance) is generic and adds unnecessary length without tool-specific value.

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?

Explains what data is returned and provides usage guidance. Output schema exists, so return format is covered. Missing details on how to interpret the status values, but acceptable for a status 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% and the parameter description in the schema is already clear. The main description adds overall context but not additional detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 returns the status of buffer-only webhook subscriptions for a session, listing specific data returned (relay config, buffered event count, per-subscription stats). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing stream_poll and stream_flush.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'check how many events are waiting in the server-side buffer before calling sap_premium_stream_poll or sap_premium_stream_flush'. Provides clear context and 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