sap.capability.describeRetrieve exact input schemas and hashes for up to 10 named SAP ABAP capabilities, optionally including output schemas, to validate SAP ABAP MCP tool calls.
Get exact input schemas and hashes: name or names (up to 10).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| names | No | ||
| includeOutputSchema | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / namesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 10,
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "name"
-]v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is 'exact input schemas and hashes', which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about error handling for unknown names or how the hash should be used.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense sentence with no filler and the verb/object front-loaded. The telegraphic ': name or names (up to 10)' phrasing is efficient, though slightly clipped for a first read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it never explains what a 'hash' is for, when the described schema should be fetched, or how the result feeds into the invoke_* siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the name-or-names alternation and the 10-item cap, but completely omits includeOutputSchema, which materially changes the response and is the one parameter an agent would most likely mis-set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('exact input schemas and hashes') tied to SAP capabilities, so the agent knows this is a schema-discovery tool. It implicitly separates itself from the invoke_* siblings, but never explicitly names them or states the relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says this should be called before sap.capability.invoke_read/write/destructive to learn the required inputs, nor any exclusion against sap.capability.search. The intended workflow is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.