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.

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

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.

Spl-token Deploy Token

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources