Configures SAP Commerce HAC instance host and credentials to enable AI assistants to automate and manage Hybris environments.
Configures the target SAP Commerce HAC instance and credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| password | No | nimda | |
| username | No | admin | |
| sso_storage_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation of target settings and credentials, but says nothing about persistence, required permissions, what happens to previously configured values, or whether existing configuration is overwritten, leaving side effects undisclosed.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally sound. However, it is undersized rather than appropriately concise for a four-parameter configuration tool, leaving too much unspecified for the brevity to be considered earned.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a configuration/mutation tool with no annotations, zero parameter descriptions, and a prerequisite role in the sibling ecosystem, the description omits essential context such as when it is required and what it changes.
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 0% across all four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It conceptually covers host and username/password via 'instance and credentials,' but never mentions sso_storage_path or clarifies expected host format, credential handling, or the default admin/nimda values.
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 (configures) and resource (SAP Commerce HAC instance and credentials), so an agent knows this tool establishes connection/target settings. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like hac_sso_login or hac_status, which also touch authentication state, leaving some ambiguity about which one to call when.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not say whether it must be called before other hac_* tools, whether it persists across sessions, or how it relates to hac_sso_login, which is a clear gap given the number of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.