Analytics Legends — SAP AI & Analytics MCP Server

List firm kinds with live counts

list_firm_kinds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Breakdown of the published firm directory by organisation kind, with a live row count per kind. Use this before search_firms to know what the population actually is instead of guessing.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rows`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`_meta`	No
`_attribution`	Yes
`result_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / label
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
Changed3 schema fields changedJul 31, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / citation_note
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / kind / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / n / type
```
Previous value: -"integer"New value: +[
+  "integer",
+  "null"
+]
```
Changed3 schema fields changedJul 31, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / citation_note
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / citation_scope
```
Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "record",
+    "section_hub"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / citation_url
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedJul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that counts are live and scoped to the published firm directory.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted language. The resource and output are front-loaded, followed by a clear usage recommendation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, though it leaves the relationship with count_firms_by unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 a specific resource and output: a breakdown of the published firm directory by organisation kind with live row counts per kind. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool count_firms_by, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: call this before search_firms to understand the firm population instead of guessing. It does not state when not to use it or how it relates to count_firms_by.

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 AI & Analytics 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.