SAP MCP Server

Register SAP Agent SNS Domain

sap_sns_register_agent_domain

Temporarily unavailable. SAP MCP does not currently publish an SNS registration write path because the historical Bonfida SNS npm package is not installable from npmjs. Use this tool only to receive the fail-fast status before any payment or signing attempt.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: local-signer write 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
`pic`	No	Profile picture URL for the SNS Pic record (required if not provided in records.Pic)
`space`	No	Storage space in bytes for the domain name account (default: 600)
`domain`	No	The .sol domain name to register for the SAP agent (with or without .sol suffix)
`records`	No	Optional map of SNS record key-value pairs to set during registration (e.g. { "Url": "https://...", "Twitter": "@handle" }). Note: SOL record is skipped during registration.
`sapData`	No	Optional structured SAP metadata to embed in the domain TXT record (capabilities, protocols, endpoints, etc.)
`protocols`	No	Optional list of protocol IDs the agent supports
`agentWallet`	No	The Solana public key (base58) of the SAP agent wallet that will own the domain
`capabilities`	No	Optional list of SAP capability IDs to advertise in the domain TXT record
`setAsPrimary`	No	Whether to set this domain as the agent primary .sol domain
`durationYears`	No	Registration duration in years (default: 1)

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important operational context: the tool is currently non-functional due to a missing npm package, will return a fail-fast status, and should not trigger payments. It also explains routing and signer boundaries. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is somewhat long but is structured into two focused paragraphs. It includes necessary operational warnings, though it repeats 'SAP MCP execution guidance' phrases. Overall it earns its length.

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 current unavailable state, the description covers the relevant context: unavailability reason, fail-fast usage, payment/routing rules, and signer boundaries. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The main gap is not specifying what exactly the fail-fast response contains.

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?

The input schema already covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, though it does note to use exact field names and avoid private key material in the schema-level description.

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 is 'Temporarily unavailable' and instructs to 'Use this tool only to receive the fail-fast status before any payment or signing attempt.' This gives a specific current purpose, though it does not describe the intended registration behavior beyond the title. It differentiates from sibling SNS tools by referencing the 'SNS registration write path.'

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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: use only to receive fail-fast status, do not call as paid hosted write, no x402 payment, and suggests alternatives ('Use the local sap_payments bridge or a hosted unsigned builder when user signing is required'). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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.

Register SAP Agent SNS Domain

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources