Skip to main content
Glama

SAP MCP Server

by ai.oobeprotocol.sap.mcp

Staking Stake Solayer

staking_stakeSolayer

Stake SOL for sSOL via Solayer. Re-staking protocol with additional yield. SAP MCP context: Protocol staking; operation class write. Use for SOL and liquid staking flows. Confirm validator or provider, amount, lockup/unstake terms, and account ownership before writes. Use SAP staking tools for SAP protocol stake accounts; use AgentKit staking tools for external staking protocols.

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
amountYesAmount in lamports to stake for sSOL
walletYesSolana public key (base58)

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate this tool modifies state (readOnlyHint=false) and is not destructive. The description adds a pre-write checklist but does not disclose specific side effects, such as stake account creation or potential lockup periods. 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 verbose, containing extensive SAP MCP execution guidance (pricing, routing, signing) that is not directly relevant to the tool's purpose. The core purpose is front-loaded but buried under boilerplate, reducing conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage (protocol, checklist). However, it lacks details about the logical flow (e.g., what happens post-staking, sSOL rollup) that would help an AI 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description text does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Stake SOL for sSOL via Solayer' with a verb and specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like staking_stakeSOL (native staking) and staking_stakeJupSOL (Jupiter SOL). It explicitly mentions 'Re-staking protocol with additional yield' and 'Use for SOL and liquid staking flows', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises 'Confirm validator or provider, amount, lockup/unstake terms, and account ownership before writes' and differentiates SAP staking tools from AgentKit tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling staking tools beyond the protocol name, leaving some reliance on the sibling list for 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 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