Skip to main content
Glama

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
CAPFORGE_CONVENTIONSNoPath to your team's private conventions file (optional).

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Features and capabilities supported by this server

Protocol revision2025-11-25

CapabilityDetails
tools
{
  "listChanged": true
}
resources
{
  "listChanged": true
}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
cap_scaffold_entityA

Generates the complete scaffolding of a CAP entity following the loaded conventions: CDS model, service projection, annotations.cds (labels + UI.LineItem), mock CSV header and i18n in two languages. Returns the content so you write it with cap_write_files and validate it with cap_validate.

cap_write_filesA

Writes one or more files into the given CAP project. Creates folders when missing.

cap_validateB

The validation loop. Runs cds compile on the project and returns the errors so the agent can fix them. A clean compile means the scaffolding is valid.

cap_lintA

Second validation layer: runs cds lint (@sap/cds eslint plugin) on the project and returns anti-patterns and best-practice warnings that cds compile does not catch. Requires @sap/cds installed in the project.

cap_deploy_checkA

Third CAP validation layer: deploys the model to a throwaway sqlite database and loads the db/data CSVs. Catches what cds compile cannot: CSV columns that do not exist on the entity, malformed data and duplicate keys. Requires @cap-js/sqlite installed in the project. The throwaway database is deleted afterwards.

cap_project_contextA

Compiles the real project to CSN and returns a digest of the existing model: services, entities, fields with types and keys, associations and compositions. Call it BEFORE generating code so you reuse what exists instead of inventing fields or entities.

cap_analyze_legacy_ui5A

Analyzes a legacy freestyle UI5 app (manifest, XML views, controllers, i18n) in READ-ONLY mode and returns the migration inventory: OData datasources, sections, tables and columns, bound fields per model, value helps, actions and OData calls from the controllers. Use it as the starting point to migrate to modern CAP/Fiori together with cap_project_context and the conventions://cap knowledge.

ui5_scaffold_sectionA

Generates an ObjectPage section for a freestyle UI5 app following the real pattern: fragment with uxap:ObjectPageSection, SmartTable (table mode, with per-column p13nData) or SimpleForm (form mode), dotted i18n keys, handler stubs and i18n lines. Returns the content so you review it, write it with cap_write_files and validate it with ui5_validate_view.

ui5_validate_viewB

The UI5 validation loop: checks that the XML is well-formed and that ALL declared event handlers (press, change, select...) exist in the controller. Returns the failures so the agent can fix them.

ui5_lintA

Third UI5 validation layer: runs SAP's official ui5lint on the app and returns deprecations and anti-patterns on the road to UI5 2.x that view validation does not catch (obsolete APIs, deprecated libs, CSP). Requires @ui5/linter installed in the app and a ui5.yaml at the root.

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription
conventionsCanonical core of CAP/CDS best practices (official SAP docs) plus the team's convention profile. The agent must follow it when generating CAP.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Scored across 10 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: scaffold vs write vs validate vs analyze vs lint are well-separated by phase. However, there are three validation tools (cap_validate, cap_lint, cap_deploy_check) and two UI5 tools (ui5_validate_view, ui5_lint) with overlapping boundaries that could cause misselection, though their descriptions do explain the distinct layers.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow an extremely consistent verb_noun pattern with clear prefixes (cap_ for CAP operations, ui5_ for UI5 operations). Verbs are predictable (validate, scaffold, lint, analyze, write, deploy_check, project_context) and 'cap_' aligns with UI5 namespace separation, making the naming highly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a dual-domain server covering both CAP backend and UI5 frontend migration. Each tool earns its place: scaffolding, writing, project context, three CAP validation layers, three UI5 layers, and analysis. The count balances full lifecycle coverage without bloat.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle is well covered: read context (cap_project_context), analyze legacy (cap_analyze_legacy_ui5), scaffold (cap_scaffold_entity, ui5_scaffold_section), write (cap_write_files), and three-layer validation on both sides (compile, lint, deploy-check; view-validate, ui5lint). Minor gaps include no explicit update/delete/modify operations and no scaffolding for non-entity CAP artifacts like services or annotations beyond entities.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessUnresponsive