Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Spl-token Burn

spl-token_burn

Burn SPL tokens from the owner's token account. SAP MCP context: Protocol spl-token; operation class write. Use for SPL token deploy, mint, transfer, burn, freeze, thaw, and authority management. Confirm mint, decimals, authority, recipient, and amount before writes. Use token tools alongside SAP payments and settlement tools only when token operations are part of the agent service lifecycle.

SAP MCP execution guidance: Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow. Pricing: paid read-premium; estimate first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool when the runtime cannot replay x402 natively. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesToken mint address (base58)
ownerYesToken account owner
amountYesAmount to burn

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds 'operation class write' but does not disclose behavioral details beyond that, such as irreversibility or token supply reduction. SAP-specific execution guidance is provided but does not enhance general behavioral transparency for the agent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but includes extensive SAP MCP execution guidance that is verbose and likely boilerplate. While structured, it could be more concise; some information (e.g., pricing and routing) may not be necessary for understanding the tool's function.

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?

The description provides the basic purpose and SAP-specific context but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., token account existence, authority requirements) and the outcome of the burn operation. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required, but completeness for a straightforward burn operation is moderate.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Confirm mint, decimals, authority, recipient, and amount before writes,' but this is not entirely aligned with the actual parameters (mint, owner, amount). No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Burn SPL tokens from the owner's token account,' specifying the verb (burn) and resource (SPL tokens from owner's account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like spl-token_transfer and spl-token_mintTo by explicitly mentioning burn as the operation.

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 mentions using the tool for SPL token burn but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. It includes a general caution to confirm parameters before writes and notes SAP MCP context, but lacks direct comparison to other spl-token tools like transfer or mint.

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