Switch the active Cloud Foundry organization and space in SAP BTP to target another environment for deployment, management, or monitoring.
Switch to a different organization and/or space
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | Organization name | |
| space | No | Space name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Switch' implies a mutation of session/target state, but the description never says whether the change persists across calls, what happens if only one of org/space is supplied, or how invalid names are handled.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It is efficient, though it is so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.
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?
The tool is structurally simple (2 optional flat params, no output schema, no annotations), so little is strictly required. Still missing is the key session-state behavior: what the target becomes when only one parameter is given, or when neither is given.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented as 'Organization name' and 'Space name', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra semantics, such as whether the values are names vs GUIDs or what the 'and/or' combination implies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Switch to') and resource ('organization and/or space'), which is clearly distinguishable from cf_get_target (reads the current target) and cf_login (authenticates). No sibling is named explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
No indication of when to prefer this over cf_login or cf_get_target, nor any prerequisite such as being authenticated or that the org must already exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.