Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Update SAP Feedback

sap_update_feedback

Update existing on-chain feedback for an agent wallet. SAP MCP context: Reputation and trust flow. Use after verifying the target agent PDA or wallet and keep hashes/attestation metadata stable and auditable.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: local-signer write workflow. Pricing: paid value-action; preview cost and transaction effects before user confirmation. 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
tagNoOptional new feedback tag/category
scoreNoNew feedback score (numeric, e.g. 1–5)
agentWalletNoAgent wallet public key (base58) to update feedback for
commentHashNoOptional 32-byte comment hash as a byte array, hex string, or base64 string

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are supplemented by description detailing it as a paid write workflow requiring cost preview, local-signer handling, and routing via sap_estimate_tool_cost or sap_payments_call_paid_tool. No 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, but description is verbose due to repeated execution guidance (also in input schema). Could be more concise.

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?

Covers purpose, execution workflow, and constraints, but lacks detail on what 'update' can change (score, tag, commentHash) and does not explain output schema. Gaps remain.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal parameter context ('keep hashes stable' relates to commentHash) but does not elaborate on each parameter's meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Update existing on-chain feedback for an agent wallet' with specific verb and resource. Includes SAP MCP context. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sap_give_feedback or sap_revoke_feedback, but naming helps.

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?

Provides explicit precondition 'Use after verifying the target agent PDA or wallet' and a constraint to keep metadata stable. Also includes execution guidance (preview cost, signer boundary). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools.

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