Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sap_analytics_cloud_mcp

sap_analytics_cloud_mcp

by JumenEngels
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sac_schedule_update

Partially update a publication schedule by providing the schedule ID and the fields to modify.

Instructions

Update a publication schedule (partial).

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": {
      "scheduleId": "<scheduleId>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "sac_schedule_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesFields to update
scheduleIdYesSchedule ID
allowalterationNoMust be true to execute

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'partial' but does not explain the nature of the update (e.g., whether it merges or replaces), nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or the role of the 'allowalteration' parameter beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely concise but at the expense of substance. It is under-specified and does not earn its place; it could be expanded to include critical usage details.

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?

With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief to provide complete context. It omits information about the return value, the effect of 'allowalteration', and the meaning of 'partial' in practical terms.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. For example, 'body' is described as 'Fields to update' without clarifying which fields are valid.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'publication schedule', with 'partial' indicating a partial update. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sac_schedule_create or sac_schedule_delete, which reduces clarity.

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. There are related schedule tools among siblings, but the description lacks any context for selection.

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