SAP OData MCP Server

sap_create_entity

Create new entities in SAP OData services by specifying the service, entity set, and data payload for insertion.

Instructions

Create a new entity in an entity set

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": {
      "serviceName": "<serviceName>",
      "entitySet": "<entitySet>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "sap_create_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`serviceName`	Yes	Name of the OData service
`entitySet`	Yes	Name of the entity set
`data`	Yes	Entity data to create

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Feb 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an entity but doesn't mention critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, side effects (e.g., database writes), or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, usage context, or output details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., examples of 'entity data' or clarification on 'serviceName'), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('new entity in an entity set'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like sap_update_entity or specify what constitutes an 'entity' in this context, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sap_update_entity or sap_get_entity. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a connection via sap_connect) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server