Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sap-mcp-server

sap-mcp-server

by Maherd18
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

sap_search_objects

Search SAP repository objects by pattern to retrieve matching object names, types, and packages.

Instructions

Searches repository objects. Returns name, type and package.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "sap_search_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch pattern, e.g. "ZCL_MCP*".
max_resultsNoMaximum number of hits, default 20.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the search operation and the return fields. However, it does not describe behavior such as no-results handling, result ordering, or whether the search is limited to certain object types, so transparency is only partial.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return information earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential invocation context: the search pattern, max_results default via schema, and return fields. It lacks richer context about result shape or when to prefer this over metadata reads, but the basics are covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already documents the search pattern and the max_results default, so no compensation is needed.

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 states the operation ('Searches repository objects') and the returned fields ('name, type and package'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_read_source or sap_list_transports. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sap_read_metadata, but the search verb makes the discovery-oriented purpose clear.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as sap_read_metadata or sap_list_transports. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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