SAP MCP Server

Publish SAP Tool By Name

sap_publish_tool_by_name

Publish a tool descriptor using SDK ToolsModule.publishByName. SAP MCP context: Use tool registry writes to advertise concrete capabilities that this MCP can serve, including AgentKit bridge tools such as bridging_bridgeWormhole and Metaplex tools such as metaplex-nft_mintNFT. Publish only schemas and descriptions that match the actual MCP tool surface.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: paid value-action; preview cost and transaction effects before user confirmation. Routing: hosted accountless write is blocked; do not call this as a paid hosted write and no x402 payment should be charged. Use the local sap_payments bridge or a hosted unsigned builder when user signing is required. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`category`	No	Numeric tool category ID
`toolName`	No	Name of the tool to publish
`httpMethod`	No	HTTP method code (e.g. 0=GET, 1=POST)
`isCompound`	No	Whether the tool is a compound tool (default: false)
`protocolId`	No	Protocol ID the tool belongs to (e.g. "jupiter")
`description`	No	Human-readable description of the tool
`paramsCount`	No	Total number of parameters the tool accepts
`requiredParams`	No	Number of required parameters
`inputSchemaJson`	No	JSON string of the tool input schema
`outputSchemaJson`	No	JSON string of the tool output schema

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	MCP content blocks returned to the caller.
`isError`	No	True when the tool result represents an application-level error.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing pricing ('paid value-action'), routing ('hosted accountless write is blocked'), and signer constraints. This adds valuable context about the tool's operational behavior. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=false is consistent with publish).

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose and repetitive, containing redundant SAP MCP guidance that also appears in the input schema. It lacks conciseness and could be restructured to front-load the core purpose and key behavioral notes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter publish tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context but misses specifics like whether it creates or updates tools, or the overall publishing lifecycle. It is minimally acceptable.

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?

Input schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on workflow context rather than param details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Publish a tool descriptor using SDK ToolsModule.publishByName' and describes the tool registry write purpose. It is clear and distinguishes from sibling sap tools like sap_update_tool. However, the purpose is somewhat buried under extensive SAP MCP guidance.

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 provides context about when to publish (to advertise capabilities) and what to publish (schemas matching MCP surface), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparisons to sibling tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 tools Inspect

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.

Publish SAP Tool By Name

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources