Skip to main content
Glama

Analytics Legends — SAP Analytics Intelligence

by ai.analyticslegends

Full concept card (Consultant tier)

get_concept_card
Read-onlyIdempotent

The FULL encyclopaedia card for one concept — body, why-it-matters, key points, cheat sheet, glossary, pro tip, and the four analysis tables (decision table, peer comparison, named pitfalls, performance facts), EN and FR — the corpus the €29.90 Consultant Pass sells. On THIS endpoint the machine-access subscription is the MCP Pass (€39.90/month, analyticslegends.ai/pricing/), which opens the ENTIRE paid tranche from one key; the €29.90 Consultant Pass is its web-subscriber equivalent and opens the same tier floor here. Requires a subscriber API key (Authorization: Bearer alk_…), Consultant tier or above; without one this tool refuses and get_concept keeps serving the public metadata. Find slugs with search_concepts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesConcept slug, verbatim from search_concepts.rows[].slug.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes
toolYes
_metaNo
_attributionYes
result_countYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds the key behavioral detail that the tool refuses requests without a paid-tier API key. It also explains the pass/tier model and the fallback behavior of get_concept, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the description then spends extra sentences on MCP Pass versus Consultant Pass pricing and web-subscriber equivalences. The authentication requirement is necessary, but the commercial pass comparison is over-verbose for an agent-facing tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential agent needs: what it returns, how to authorize, when it refuses, and where to discover slugs. The pricing/pass details are not needed for correctness but introduce minor ambiguity.

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 the only parameter, slug, is fully documented as a verbatim value from search_concepts.rows[].slug. The description repeats the pointer to search_concepts but adds no new parameter-level semantic beyond 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 description states this tool returns the full encyclopaedia card for one concept, enumerating the card's content blocks and the EN/FR variants, and distinguishes it from get_concept, which serves public metadata only. The scope is unmistakable and clearly differentiated from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to use this tool with a subscriber API key at Consultant tier or above, and that without such a key the tool refuses while get_concept remains available. It also routes the agent to search_concepts for finding valid slugs, giving exact when-to-use and alternative-tool guidance.

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

All Analytics Legends — SAP Analytics Intelligence 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action (firms, clients, modules, concepts, studies, opportunities, rates, news, knowledge graph). Some pairs like find_academy_modules vs list_sap_modules and find_sap_clients vs search_firms could be confused, but the descriptions explicitly disambiguate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: find_, get_, list_, search_, count_, query_. Verbs are consistently used for their roles (find/search for querying, get for single items, list for enumerations), with no mixed casing or style.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a broad domain with multiple distinct datasets (directory, clients, academy, concepts, studies, opportunities, rates, news, graph). Each tool earns its place, though the count is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness5/5

The domain is a read-only intelligence platform, and it provides search/list and get operations for every major entity: firms, clients, modules, concepts, studies, and opportunities. The knowledge graph adds relational querying, and rates/news are covered. No essential lifecycle operations are missing for the stated purpose.

Resources