sap.capability.invoke_readInvoke a read capability in SAP ABAP systems after describing it, preserving the original tool validation and results for accurate, secure data retrieval.
Invoke a read capability after sap.capability.describe. The original tool validation and result are preserved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| arguments | No | ||
| schemaHash | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the original tool's validation and result are preserved, which tells the agent responses are not transformed, but it doesn't explain failure modes, auth requirements, or what 'preserved' means operationally.
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?
Two tight sentences with the precondition front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.
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?
No output schema exists and parameters are wholly undocumented, so the description carries the full burden — yet it explains neither the required schemaHash/arguments contract nor what a returned result looks like. For a generic capability dispatcher with nested free-form arguments, this leaves major gaps.
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% for 3 parameters, and the description does not compensate. The critical link between 'schemaHash' (a required 64-hex value) and the output of sap.capability.describe is only obliquely implied, and 'arguments' (free-form nested object) is never explained.
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 (invoke) and resource (read capability), and the 'read' qualifier distinguishes it from the invoke_write and invoke_destructive siblings by intent. It stops short of explaining what a capability invocation actually entails, but an agent can route to it correctly.
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?
Gives explicit sequencing guidance: invoke only after sap.capability.describe. It does not state when to choose this over invoke_write/invoke_destructive beyond the obvious read/read-only distinction, or what to do if the capability turns out to be a write.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.