SAP MCP Server

Spl-token Deploy Token

spl-token_deployToken

Deploy a new SPL token with Metaplex metadata. Returns the mint address and an unsigned transaction. 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

Name	Required	Description
`uri`	No	URI to off-chain metadata JSON (image, description, etc.)
`name`	Yes	Token name (stored in Metaplex metadata)
`owner`	Yes	Token owner / mint authority wallet
`symbol`	Yes	Token symbol (e.g. "MYTKN")
`decimals`	No	Token decimals (default: 9)
`isMutable`	No	Whether metadata is mutable (default: true)
`initialSupply`	No	Raw token amount (smallest unit, no decimals)
`mintAuthority`	No	Solana public key (base58)
`freezeAuthority`	No	Solana public key (base58)
`sellerFeeBasisPoints`	No	Royalty fee in bps (for fungible with metadata)

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 24, 2026

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"Spl-token Deploy Token input schema. 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. Use exact field names from this schema; do not guess aliases or include private key material."

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Description discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transaction, requires payment estimation, has routing constraints, and requires user signing. These details go beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, which already indicate a write operation.

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 with repetitive SAP MCP boilerplate and a misleading list of operations. It could be trimmed to front-load the essential purpose and behavior.

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 complexity (10 parameters, output schema), the description covers the core action, return value, and important execution constraints. It is sufficiently complete for an informed agent.

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 the description does not need to add much. It offers only a generic caution to confirm values (mint, decimals, authority, etc.) without parameter-specific elaboration. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence clearly states deploying a new SPL token with Metaplex metadata. However, the following line 'Use for SPL token deploy, mint, transfer, burn, freeze, thaw, and authority management' is ambiguous and could mislead the agent into thinking this tool handles multiple operations beyond deploy.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spl-token_mintTo or spl-token_transfer. The description focuses on SAP MCP execution context rather than use-case differentiation.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.