Skip to main content
Glama
dnic-dev

bw-modeling-mcp

by dnic-dev

bw_create_aggregation_level

Creates a new aggregation level on a planning-enabled aDSO or CompositeProvider, enabling Integrated Planning and embedded BPC scenarios. It exposes the provider's characteristics and key figures, with optional field restriction.

Instructions

Create a new Aggregation Level (TLOGO ALVL) on top of a planning-enabled InfoProvider (aDSO or CompositeProvider), for Integrated Planning / embedded BPC. Sequence: lock → POST the shell → unlock → lock → PUT the field list → unlock. The Aggregation Level is created inactive — activate it with bw_activate using object_type "alvl" and lock_handle "". By default every characteristic and key figure of the InfoProvider is exposed; pass fields to restrict the selection. A selection needs at least one characteristic and one key figure, and it must contain every key field of the underlying provider, otherwise activation reports the missing ones. The InfoProvider must be planning-enabled, otherwise the create fails with a message saying it cannot serve as the basis of an aggregation level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesDescription of the Aggregation Level.
fieldsNoCharacteristics and key figures to expose, by their name on the InfoProvider (e.g. ["FIELD_NAME", "IOBJ_NAME"]). Omit to expose every field of the provider. Read the provider with bw_get_adso or bw_get_composite_provider to see the names. On a CompositeProvider the fields carry a generated prefix ("<prefix>-FIELD_NAME"); both that form and the bare name are accepted.
packageNoDevelopment package. Defaults to "$TMP" (local, not transported).
info_areaYesInfoArea the Aggregation Level is created in (e.g. "AREA_NAME").
transportNoTransport request number. Required on systems with transport obligation.
info_providerYesTechnical name of the underlying planning-enabled InfoProvider — an aDSO or a CompositeProvider (e.g. "OBJECT_NAME").
aggregation_level_nameYesTechnical name of the new Aggregation Level (e.g. "OBJECT_NAME").
Behavior5/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the multi-step lock/POST/unlock/lock/PUT/unlock sequence, inactive-creation behavior, default exposure of all provider fields, selection constraints (at least one characteristic and one key figure, all key fields required), and the failure condition for non-planning-enabled providers. This is rare specificity.

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 structured and information-dense with zero filler. Complex procedural and constraint information is organized into ordered statements that progress from creation sequence, to activation, to field-selection rules, to failure conditions. Front-loading the core purpose and immediate procedural requirement is effective.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and lack of annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, procedure, activation follow-up, optional parameters, field-list expectations, and common errors. The agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the workflow around it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially around the 'fields' parameter: its effect (restrict vs expose all), accepted formats for CompositeProvider fields, and the required content of a valid selection. It also reinforces the planning-enabled prerequisite for info_provider, which is only implied in the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new Aggregation Level') on a clearly identified resource type (TLOGO ALVL) with a defined underlying object (planning-enabled InfoProvider). It clearly scopes this tool relative to related operations like activation and update, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly identifies the intended creation scenario and prerequisites (planning-enabled aDSO or CompositeProvider), and it tells the agent to use bw_activate for activation. It does not explicitly name bw_update_aggregation_level as the alternative for existing levels, so it stops short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dnic-dev/bw-modeling-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server