Skip to main content
Glama
OOBE-PROTOCOL

SAP MCP Server

Bridging Bridge Wormhole

bridging_bridgeWormhole
Destructive

Bridge tokens between Solana and EVM chains using Wormhole. Specify source chain, destination chain, token, amount, sender, and recipient.

Instructions

Bridge tokens across chains via Wormhole. Supports Solana ↔ EVM chains. 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
tokenYesToken address on source chain
amountYesAmount to bridge (raw, smallest unit)
senderYesSender wallet on source chain
recipientYesRecipient address on destination chain
relayerFeeNoRaw token amount (smallest unit, no decimals)
sourceChainYesSource chain identifier (e.g. "solana", "ethereum", "base", "polygon")
destinationChainYesDestination chain identifier

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMCP content blocks returned to the caller.
isErrorNoTrue when the tool result represents an application-level error.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive write (destructiveHint=true). The description adds useful context: confirms it is a write operation, advises confirming details before invoking, and mentions calling the status tool afterward. No contradiction with annotations, and the extra workflow steps enhance transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than necessary, mixing purpose, context, guidelines, and an SAP workflow. Some information is repeated (e.g., 'Bridge tokens...' and 'Use for cross-chain asset movement'). The first sentence clearly states purpose, but overall structure could be more concise and better organized.

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 covers purpose, supported chains, usage guidelines, and a specific SAP workflow. However, it lacks details about the output schema (which exists) and does not clarify the ambiguity between Wormhole and deBridge. Given the complexity of cross-chain bridging, more context about return values and potential risks would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description lists parameter names in a sentence ('source chain, destination chain, token mint...') but does not add any new semantics beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 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 it bridges tokens across chains via Wormhole, supporting Solana to EVM chains. However, it ambiguously mentions 'or deBridge' which could cause confusion with the sibling tool bridging_bridgeDeBridge. The verb and resource are specific, but the inclusion of deBridge slightly undermines clarity.

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?

The description provides usage guidance: use for cross-chain asset movement, confirm parameters before invocation, call status tool after submission, and follow SAP agent registration workflow if applicable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling bridge tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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