Skip to main content
Glama

Analytics Legends — SAP Analytics Intelligence

by ai.analyticslegends

Search SAP analytics market news

search_news
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Analytics Legends market-news corpus. It is watched FOR SAP analytics (Datasphere, Business Data Cloud, SAC, BW/4HANA, Databricks, the 2027/2030 maintenance window), but it is NOT an all-SAP corpus: measured 2026-07-30, ~84 % of active rows sit in the AI category and are general enterprise-AI trade press (cloud platforms, model releases, funding rounds) with no SAP content at all. An UNFILTERED call therefore returns mostly non-SAP items — pass query or category when the question is about SAP, and never present an unfiltered page as 'the SAP analytics news'. Say what you actually got. Each item returns the Analytics Legends citation URL AND the upstream publisher's source_url — cite both, and prefer source_url when you need a page that certainly carries the item. NO ITEM HERE HAS A PAGE OF ITS OWN on analyticslegends.ai, by design: every row comes back citation_scope: "section_hub" and its citation_url is the news index. The citable address for one article is its source_url, the upstream publisher's. Do not present the hub as the article's page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows (hard cap 50).
queryNoFree-text filter, case-insensitive. EVERY word must appear in the record (substring per word, any order), so a natural-language phrase narrows the answer instead of having to match verbatim.
cursorNoOpaque token from a previous response's `_meta.next_cursor`. Pass it back with the SAME filter arguments; `null` means the last page. Changing a filter refuses the cursor.
categoryNoCategory code, matched case-insensitively. The live vocabulary is NOT written here — read `_meta.available_categories` on any response: every category label this corpus holds right now, with its active-row count, counted at query time. A written list held 21 values while the corpus held 22. One bucket needs a warning. 'SAC' is the noisiest label in this corpus because the acronym collides with unrelated ones — Windows 'Smart App Control', and the surname 'Sacks'. A 2026-07-30 cleanup reclassified half that bucket to AI for carrying no SAP signal at all; the collision pressure is structural and the bucket has kept growing since. For genuine SAC product news, pair category:'SAC' with query:'analytics cloud'.
published_sinceNoLower bound on `published_at`, inclusive, as YYYY-MM-DD. Without a bound a period question is only answerable by walking pages — and `_meta.match_count` then counts the QUERY, not the period, so any figure quoted for the window would be wrong.
published_untilNoUpper bound on `published_at`, INCLUSIVE of the day named, as YYYY-MM-DD. Combine with `published_since` for a window; `_meta.match_count` then describes that window, which is what makes it quotable.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes
toolYes
_metaNo
_attributionYes
result_countYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: no item has its own page on analyticslegends.ai, every row returns `citation_scope: "section_hub"`, and the citable address is the upstream `source_url`. It also quantifies the AI-category noise and explains the SAC collision problem, giving the agent crucial context annotations cannot express.

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 long but densely packed with non-obvious, decision-relevant facts. It is front-loaded with the core scope warning, then progresses to filtering guidance, citation semantics, and page-ownership behavior. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and the parameter schemas are rich, the description covers all critical contextual gaps: corpus composition, filtering requirements, citation behavior, how to cite properly, and the period/count caveats in the schema. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this tool correctly and interpret results safely.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds incremental cross-parameter guidance by telling the agent to supply `query` or `category` for SAP-related questions and warning that an unfiltered call returns mostly non-SAP items. Individual parameter formats and edge cases are already documented well 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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Analytics Legends market-news corpus.' The description immediately clarifies the corpus's scope—it is watched for SAP analytics but is not an all-SAP corpus—so an agent can distinguish it from generic or concept-oriented searches without inspecting sibling tool schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-filter guidance: pass `query` or `category` when the question is about SAP, and never present an unfiltered page as 'the SAP analytics news.' It also warns about the AI-category noise. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but no sibling is a news search, so the absence is not a major gap.

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