aras-plm-mcp

aras_get_change_impact

Retrieve affected items for a change order (ECR/ECN) by resolving the intermediate link to avoid opaque IDs.

Instructions

Elementi realmente impattati da una modifica (ECR o ECN), risolvendo gli Affected Item. In Aras la relazione non punta alla Part ma a un oggetto intermedio, quindi una query diretta restituirebbe solo id opachi.

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": {
      "changeType": "<changeType>",
      "changeId": "<changeId>"
    },
    "name": "aras_get_change_impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`changeId`	Yes	id della ECR/ECN
`changeType`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that no changes will be made to the system, which is a minor gap. A definitive note on side effects would improve transparency, though the absence of write operations is generally inferred.

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 concise, avoiding unnecessary details or redundancy, and follows a clear, consistent format with other tools. It’s straightforward and efficient.

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 provides basic context but doesn't explicitly cover when to use this subsequent to other tools or what to do with the result. The given context is narrow and could benefit from additional scaffolding like 'Use this to retrieve the inbasket; the returned items can be iterated as needed.' Without it, the context is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema is an empty object, so there are no parameters to document. The description correctly reflects this by not inventing any, and the absence is clear from the schema; all possible inputs are covered, even if no parameters exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves the inbasket for the current user, leaving no ambiguity about its core function. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the inbasket is read-only or what it contains, which could be inferred from similar tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool vs others, offering no examples or differentiated scenarios. It's implied to be the go-to for fetching an inbasket, but the description doesn't explicitly outline selection criteria, making it unclear when to choose this over alternatives.

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

Deploy Server