Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

generate_xpp_form

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a complete, compilable AxForm AOT XML with the CORRECT control serialization () for the requested pattern. Patterns: SimpleList, DetailsMaster, DetailsTransaction, ListPage, Dialog, DropDialog, Workspace, Extension. After generation, call validate_form_pattern on the result before write_aot_object.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoComma-separated field names to include in the grid/header, e.g. 'AccountNum,Name,Status'
formNameYesPascalCase form name, e.g. 'ALMCustomerForm'
modelNameNoModel name for label prefix, e.g. 'ALMMyModel'
fieldTypesNoOptional: comma-separated control type per field (aligned 1:1 with fields). Values: String, Int, Real, Date, DateTime, Enum, CheckBox, Reference. If omitted, all fields default to AxFormStringControl (current behavior).
formPatternYesForm pattern: 'SimpleList', 'DetailsMaster', 'DetailsTransaction', 'ListPage', 'Dialog', 'DropDialog', 'Workspace', 'Extension'
primaryTableNoPrimary/header table name, e.g. 'ALMCustomerTable'
secondaryTableNoSecondary/joined table name (DetailsTransaction: lines table; ListPage: InnerJoin lookup table), e.g. 'SalesTable'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / fieldTypes
      Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional: comma-separated control type per field (aligned 1:1 with fields). Values: String, Int, Real, Date, DateTime, Enum, CheckBox, Reference. If omitted, all fields default to AxFormStringControl (current behavior).",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / secondaryTable / description
      Previous value: -"Secondary/lines table name (DetailsTransaction only), e.g. 'ALMOrderLine'"New value: +"Secondary/joined table name (DetailsTransaction: lines table; ListPage: InnerJoin lookup table), e.g. 'SalesTable'"
  2. Added

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the output is a complete, compilable XML artifact with correct control serialization, and generation is not the final write step since validation is expected before writing. No annotation contradiction.

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 three sentences with no filler. The key action and correctness requirement are front-loaded, the pattern list is compact, and the post-generation validation instruction is placed at the end.

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 the generation scope and the intended workflow, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it references validate_form_pattern and write_aot_object, which are not present in the sibling tool list, making that part of the guidance potentially unactionable. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear expectation that the tool returns generated XML.

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%, with all 7 parameters already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('AxForm AOT XML'), and further clarifies the exact serialization requirement. The pattern enumeration makes its scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling generators like generate_xpp_template, generate_query, or generate_data_entity.

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 clear sequential workflow guidance: generate, then validate_form_pattern, then write_aot_object. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternative generator tools, but the target artifact (AxForm AOT XML) strongly implies its use case.

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

All ALM X++ MCP Server toolsInspect
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