Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Get SAP Protocol Invariants

sap_protocol_invariants

Free read-only protocol invariant card for agents. Returns the current SAP program id, protocol treasury, source-level expected 0.1 SOL registration fee invariant, hosted write routing rules, local sap_payments routes, identity pipeline, and forbidden actions. Use this before SAP registry writes and whenever fee/treasury behavior is unclear. SAP MCP context: Direct synapse-sap-sdk wrapper served by this MCP. Read tools return on-chain state; write tools require signer policy, configured RPC, and the active SAP profile.

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

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMCP content blocks returned to the caller.
isErrorNoTrue when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims 'read-only' but annotations have readOnlyHint=false, which is a direct contradiction. Also idempotentHint=false conflicts with expected read-only behavior. This inconsistency misleads agents about the tool's safety and effects.

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 is verbose, repeating pricing, routing, and signer boundary information both in the description and the input schema. Could be more concise. Front-loading is decent but the redundancy hurts 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?

Despite the annotation contradiction, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and provides SAP MCP execution context. With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete for an agent to understand usage.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds extra guidance about input schema (e.g., not guessing aliases, no private keys), which is helpful beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this meets it.

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 protocol invariants (SAP program id, treasury, fees, etc.) and uses 'Free read-only protocol invariant card' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from other SAP tools by its focus on invariants and read-only nature.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before SAP registry writes and whenever fee/treasury behavior is unclear.' Also distinguishes read vs write tools in the SAP MCP context. However, no direct alternatives are named for specific tasks, so a slight deduction.

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