Skip to main content
Glama
OOBE-PROTOCOL

SAP MCP Server

Bridging Bridge De Bridge

bridging_bridgeDeBridge
Destructive

Bridge tokens across blockchains via deBridge DLN. Specify source and destination chains, token addresses, amount, sender, and recipient to execute cross-chain transfers with deterministic pricing.

Instructions

Bridge tokens across chains via deBridge DLN. Fast cross-chain transfers with deterministic pricing. SAP MCP context: Protocol bridging; operation class write. Use for cross-chain asset movement through Wormhole or deBridge. Confirm source chain, destination chain, token mint, amount, recipient, route fees, and finality expectations before invoking a bridge write. For bridge flows call the matching status tool after submission. If the bridge capability belongs to a registered SAP agent, plan the profile with sap_agent_identity_plan, register through sap_payments_register_agent, then advertise bridge capability IDs with sap_payments_update_agent or sap_publish_tool_by_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesAmount to bridge (raw)
senderYesSender address
tokenInYesToken address on source chain
tokenOutYesToken address on destination chain (use "0x0" for native)
recipientYesRecipient address on destination chain
slippageBpsNoSlippage tolerance in bps
sourceChainYesSource chain ID (e.g. 7565164 for Solana)
destinationChainYesDestination chain ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMCP content blocks returned to the caller.
isErrorNoTrue when the tool result represents an application-level error.
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive write. Description adds 'fast cross-chain transfers with deterministic pricing' and mentions finality expectations. But no details on failure behavior, refunds, or slippage mechanics. 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 and includes extraneous context like 'SAP MCP context: Protocol bridging; operation class write' and a detailed paragraph on SAP agent registration that is irrelevant for using this tool directly.

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?

Missing details on return format, error handling, and slippage behavior (e.g., slippageBps param not explained). The description focuses on SAP setup rather than tool-specific execution context, leaving gaps despite full schema and output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description echoes some param names (source chain, destination chain, token mint, amount, recipient) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what's in the schema.

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 first sentence clearly states 'Bridge tokens across chains via deBridge DLN' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bridging_bridgeWormhole by naming deBridge, and from status tools by noting it's the submission tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides some guidance: 'call the matching status tool after submission' and lists items to confirm before invoking. However, it confusingly says 'through Wormhole or deBridge' while the tool is specifically deBridge, and includes a long irrelevant paragraph about SAP agent registration.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/OOBE-PROTOCOL/sap-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server