Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sap_analytics_cloud_mcp

sap_analytics_cloud_mcp

by JumenEngels
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sac_users_update

Replace an existing user in SAP Analytics Cloud using a complete SCIM user resource. Requires user UUID and allowalteration set to true.

Instructions

Full replace of a user (SCIM v2 PUT).

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "sac_users_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesComplete SCIM User resource
userIdYesUser UUID
allowalterationNoMust be true to execute

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'full replace' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is idempotent, what happens if the user does not exist, or any side effects. The 'allowalteration' parameter hint is not mentioned in the description.

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 at one sentence, which conveys the core purpose. However, it could be structured to include brief parameter context or usage notes without being overly long.

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 complexity (3 parameters, nested body object, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on required fields in the body, behavior on nonexistent users, and the role of 'allowalteration'. A full replace operation needs more context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'allowalteration' parameter or the structure of the body object.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Full replace of a user (SCIM v2 PUT)' clearly states the action (replace), the resource (user), and the protocol (SCIM v2 PUT). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like sac_users_patch and sac_users_create.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like sac_users_patch. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where a full replace is appropriate, or when to use partial updates instead.

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