SAP MCP Server

Spl-token Transfer

spl-token_transfer

Transfer SPL tokens between wallets. Optionally creates the recipient ATA. 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: local-signer write 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
`to`	Yes	Recipient wallet address
`from`	Yes	Sender wallet address
`memo`	No	Optional memo to attach to the transaction
`mint`	Yes	Token mint address
`amount`	Yes	Amount to transfer (raw, smallest unit)
`createAta`	No	Create recipient ATA if needed (default: true)

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 Transfer input schema. Intent: local-signer write 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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'optionally creates the recipient ATA,' which is a useful side effect. However, it does not explain what happens on failure (e.g., insufficient balance) or clarify the non-destructive nature (transfer does not destroy tokens). No contradiction with annotations.

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 overly long due to repetitive SAP boilerplate text (e.g., 'SAP MCP context', 'Intent: local-signer write workflow') that clutters the core purpose. The key operational info is front-loaded (first sentence), but the rest is noise that could mislead or distract an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description misses important context: what happens if createAta is false and no ATA exists? What are prerequisites (e.g., token account existence)? The SAP boilerplate provides no tool-specific completeness. The description is insufficient for an agent to handle edge cases.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Transfer SPL tokens between wallets' and mentions optional ATA creation, distinguishing it from siblings like spl-token_burn or spl-token_mintTo. However, the later line 'Use for SPL token deploy, mint, transfer, burn, freeze, thaw, and authority management' is overly broad and could cause confusion.

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 includes a generic line 'Use for SPL token deploy, mint, transfer, burn, freeze, thaw, and authority management' that applies to the whole suite, not this tool specifically. It does not clearly indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like spl-token_mintTo or spl-token_burn, and the SAP boilerplate does not provide actionable guidance for tool selection.

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.