FMEPM Connect for Oracle EPM

Read forms and approval workflow

read_planning

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a named form's layout and point of view, or approval units, available actions, promotion path and history metadata. Form requests use fields=gridInfo,pov and omit financial values even if Oracle sends extra fields. It reads no full form XML or rule script and does not discover form names. Approval list and available-action POSTs only read. History omits comments and values. Use it to inspect a known form or review approval state before a proposed action. https://docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/enterprise-performance-management-common/prest/get_export_form_data.html

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "read_planning"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum metadata records.
`action`	Yes	Metadata to read. No approval status is changed.
`entity`	No	One planning unit entity.
`offset`	No	Approval units or history offset.
`version`	No	Version for approvals.
`formName`	No	Known form name or id for form layout.
`scenario`	No	Scenario for approvals.
`secondary`	No	Optional secondary dimension member for that entity.
`connection`	No	Connection id or label from list_connections. Defaults to the user's default connection.
`application`	No	Application name. Defaults to the connection.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: form requests use fields=gridInfo,pov and omit financial values even if Oracle sends extra fields; no full form XML or rule script is returned; history omits comments and values; approval POSTs are read-only. Return shape per action (pagination, record structure) is not described, keeping it below 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the primary capability and no filler, but the clipped, telegraphic sentences ('It reads no full form XML or rule script') make it dense and slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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?

For a 10-parameter, action-multiplexed read tool with no output schema, it covers scope limits and data omissions well. It leaves the per-action return shapes and how limit/offset apply across actions implicit, which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying parameters to actions (fields=gridInfo,pov for form reads, financial values withheld) and clarifying that approval reads do not mutate status. It doesn't fully map entity/version/scenario/secondary to their specific actions.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: reads a named form's layout and point of view, or approval units, actions, promotion path and history. It explicitly bounds the scope by saying it 'does not discover form names', which separates it from list_forms without needing the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Use it to inspect a known form or review approval state before a proposed action.' The exclusion of name discovery implies list_forms is the alternative, but that sibling is never named explicitly.

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

All FMEPM Connect for Oracle EPM 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.

Resources

Need Help?