Skip to main content
Glama

Premium Webhook Catalog

sap_webhook_catalog

Free webhook discovery for paid SAP MCP event delivery. Returns webhook event contracts, signed-delivery expectations, replay windows, x402/pay.sh pricing, provider readiness, and strict subscription schemas.

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
pluginIdNoOptional premium plugin id used to narrow webhook discovery, for example sap-premium-market-data.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesCapability type requested by the caller.
versionYesPremium capability catalog contract version.
capabilitiesYesPremium capabilities filtered by type with schemas, pricing, delivery contracts, and provider status.
providerStatusYesProvider environment readiness map for capabilities that need external providers.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as execution guidance for SAP MCP (pricing, routing, signer boundary). It explains the tool is free and returns structured data. However, there is a potential contradiction: annotations set readOnlyHint=false, but the tool is described as a discovery/query operation, implying read-only behavior.

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 concise in stating the tool's output and includes a separate block for SAP MCP execution guidance. While the guidance is somewhat generic, it is relevant and does not add excessive verbosity. The structure is clear.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains the return values and execution context. The list of returned data types is comprehensive, and the SAP MCP guidance provides necessary operational details.

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 single optional parameter 'pluginId' is described in the schema as narrowing discovery. The description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose as 'webhook discovery' and lists specific returned data types (event contracts, signed-delivery expectations, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_premium_webhook_register and sap_premium_webhook_relay, which handle registration and relaying.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use this catalog instead of other webhook-related tools (e.g., register, status). The execution guidance discusses pricing and routing but not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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.