Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sap_analytics_cloud_mcp

sap_analytics_cloud_mcp

by JumenEngels
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sac_import_get_job_status

Check the status of an import job to verify if it is ready, processing, completed, or failed.

Instructions

Get job status: READY_FOR_DATA, READY_FOR_WRITE, PROCESSING, COMPLETED, FAILED.

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": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "sac_import_get_job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYesJob ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists possible status values (READY_FOR_DATA, READY_FOR_WRITE, PROCESSING, COMPLETED, FAILED), which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects, leaving gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one line) and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the purpose and possible statuses. Minimalism is a strength here, though it sacrifices some detail.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is partially complete. However, it does not explain what the returned status object looks like or any additional context (e.g., whether it returns a single string or a structured object). The lack of output schema amplifies this gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'jobId' described as 'Job ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'job status', and lists possible statuses. It is clear in what it does, but it does not distinguish this tool from similar 'get' siblings like sac_import_get_model or sac_export_get_data, leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool (e.g., after creating a job) nor contrasts it with alternatives like sac_import_list_jobs or sac_import_run_job. The agent receives no context for appropriate invocation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools