Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Build SAP x402 Headers From Escrow

sap_x402_build_headers_from_escrow

Build SAP x402 HTTP headers by fetching escrow data for an agent wallet with SDK X402Registry.buildPaymentHeadersFromEscrow. SAP MCP context: Payment and settlement flow. Estimate or fetch state before creating escrows or settling calls; write operations require an enabled signer mode and MCP policy approval.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: hosted unsigned transaction builder. Pricing: paid builder; estimate first, then pay/build and finalize unsigned transactions locally when returned. Routing: hosted-safe builder. If a transaction is returned, preview/sign/submit with sap_payments_finalize_transaction; never create temporary signing scripts. Signer boundary: user-controlled local profile or external signer; OOBE hosted MCP remains non-custodial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceNoOptional escrow nonce as a decimal string. Defaults to 0.
networkNoOptional network identifier for X-Payment-Network
agentWalletNoAgent wallet public key (base58)

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds context: it is a 'hosted unsigned transaction builder', 'paid builder', and requires estimate first. It notes signer mode and policy approval for writes. This goes beyond annotations, though some details are repeated.

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, containing repeated execution guidance (e.g., 'SAP MCP execution guidance' appears in both description and schema description). The first sentence is good, but the rest is bloated and could be significantly trimmed for efficiency.

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 complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers intent, pricing, routing, signer boundary, and workflow (estimate→pay/build→finalize). It provides sufficient context for safe and correct invocation, though slightly repetitive.

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 3 parameters with clear descriptions (nonce, network, agentWallet) and 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it builds SAP x402 HTTP headers by fetching escrow data using a specific SDK method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_x402_build_payment_headers by specifying 'from escrow'. However, the core purpose is diluted by extensive execution guidance.

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?

The description provides when-to-use hints: 'Estimate or fetch state before creating escrows or settling calls' and states prerequisites (enabled signer mode and MCP policy approval for write operations). It also directs the agent to use sap_payments_finalize_transaction for returned transactions. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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