search-sap-servicesSearch SAP services by keyword or category to filter available OData services by name, title, or description and return a configurable number of results.
Find SAP services by keyword/category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of services to return | |
| query | No | Search term to filter services (name, title, description) | |
| category | No | Service category filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Find SAP services' but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of services with details), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any limitations like pagination or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Find SAP services by keyword/category') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with three parameters. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., service details, IDs, or metadata), how results are ordered, or any error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
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?
The description mentions 'keyword/category' which aligns with the 'query' and 'category' parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully documents all three parameters with descriptions, enums, and defaults, so the description provides minimal extra value, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Find') and resource ('SAP services') with filtering criteria ('by keyword/category'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this search tool from other sibling tools like 'discover-service-entities' or 'sap-smart-query', which might also involve service discovery or querying.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'discover-service-entities' and 'sap-smart-query' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.