Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Spl-token Rug Check

spl-token_rugCheck

Check a token for potential rug pull risks: mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity. 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: paid hosted call; call sap_estimate_tool_cost first, then use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if the runtime cannot handle x402 natively. 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
mintYesToken mint to analyze

Output Schema

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

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description states 'operation class write' while the tool's purpose is to check risks (a read operation). This contradicts the nature of the tool. Additionally, annotations have readOnlyHint=false, but the tool appears read-only. The description does not clarify what happens during the check, e.g., whether it modifies state or requires authentication. The SAP boilerplate adds generic cost and signer info but does not resolve the read/write confusion.

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 contains a clear first sentence but is then cluttered with repetitive SAP MCP boilerplate about pricing, routing, and signer boundary. This boilerplate is not specific to this tool and distracts from the core purpose. The structure is not concise; the extra content could be removed or placed elsewhere.

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 lists three risk areas (mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity) and mentions SAP MCP context. However, it does not explain how the check is performed (e.g., on-chain analysis, simulation) or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). The paid read-premium note is present but not elaborated. Overall, it provides a basic understanding but lacks depth.

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 parameter 'mint' has a clear schema description 'Token mint to analyze', covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond this. The schema already adequately documents the parameter meaning.

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 'Check a token for potential rug pull risks: mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity.' It uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'token', and specifies the risk areas, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spl-token_transfer or spl-token_deployToken.

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 says 'Use for SPL token deploy, mint, transfer, burn, freeze, thaw, and authority management.' This suggests using the rug check for those operations, but it's unclear and may be confusing. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The SAP boilerplate adds no usage context.

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