Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
b1-mcp-server

b1-mcp-server

by Anand95r
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

execute_service_layer_write_unattended

Executes guarded OData PATCH, POST, or DELETE writes without approval when the connected profile has slWriteApproval 'none'; all other Service Layer write safeguards still apply.

Instructions

Execute a guarded OData write (PATCH, POST or DELETE) with NO approval of any kind, for development companies. Denied unless the connected profile has slWriteApproval "none" (printed by connect_database); otherwise use execute_service_layer_write. These are real writes to the company database.

Every other rule of execute_service_layer_write applies unchanged: database must equal the connected Service Layer database, the verb must be in slAllowedMethods, the same endpoint shapes are enforced, MCP_DRY_RUN previews and MCP_SL_WRITES_ENABLED=false disables it.

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": {
      "database": "<database>",
      "method": "<method>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "execute_service_layer_write_unattended"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesRelative OData endpoint without the configured /b1s/v1/ or /b1s/v2/ root
bodyNoJSON object: required and non-empty for PATCH, optional for POST, forbidden for DELETE
methodYesMust also be allowed by the connected profile's slAllowedMethods
databaseYesConnected company database exactly as connect_database prints it; shown to the approver and checked by the server

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that these are real, unapproved writes to the company database, the server-side denial condition, the slAllowedMethods verb restriction, the database-equality check, dry-run previewing via MCP_DRY_RUN, and the MCP_SL_WRITES_ENABLED=false kill switch. That is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 highest-risk facts — no approval, real writes to the company database — are front-loaded, followed by the eligibility gate, the alternative tool, and a compact delegation of inherited rules. No sentence is filler, and delegating the shared rules to execute_service_layer_write avoids duplication.

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 four-parameter, nested-body write tool with no output schema, the description covers gating, safety constraints, and alternatives thoroughly. The only material gap is return behavior — nothing says what a successful write returns or how failures surface — though the missing output schema makes that a modest omission.

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%, so url, method, database, and body semantics are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the database-equality and slAllowedMethods constraints but adds little beyond what the structured fields state, and says nothing about body requirements (required for PATCH, forbidden for DELETE). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (guarded OData write supporting PATCH/POST/DELETE) plus the defining scope: no approval, development companies only. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling execute_service_layer_write, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (connected profile must have slWriteApproval "none", printed by connect_database) and a fallback instruction: otherwise use execute_service_layer_write. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both specified, along with the connect_database step needed to check eligibility.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools