Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bw-modeling-mcp

bw-modeling-mcp

by dnic-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bw_describe

Lists available SAP BW modeling tools and operations, or returns full parameter definitions for a chosen operation so callers know valid inputs.

Instructions

Describe the focused tools: without arguments the catalogue of every tool and its operations; with tool and the operation value (type for bw_read, operation otherwise) the complete parameter definition of that operation.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bw_describe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNoA focused tool name, e.g. "bw_write_query".
typeNoFor bw_read: the object type.
operationNoFor every other tool: the operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content shape for both modes (catalogue of operations, or complete parameter definition), which is genuine value. However, it never states that this is a read-only/introspection operation, nor warns that the no-argument form may return a large catalogue, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single compact sentence with the primary mode front-loaded, so there is no padding. But the second half is dense and hard to parse ('with tool and the operation value (type for bw_read, operation otherwise)'), and a short structured split into two modes would be considerably clearer.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing what each mode returns: the catalogue of tools and operations, or the complete parameter definition of one operation. That is close to what an agent needs to call it correctly, with the only real omission being the read-only nature and any note on response size.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds the important pairing rule (tool plus type for bw_read, tool plus operation otherwise), but this largely restates what the schema descriptions already say. No additional format, case-sensitivity, or error behavior is provided.

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 names a specific verb and resource (describe the focused tools) and distinguishes two distinct outputs: a full catalogue versus a single operation's parameter definition. It even singles out bw_read for the 'type' variant, which helps separate it from the many bw_* action tools. The awkward phrasing 'with tool and the operation value' slightly muddies the core statement, so it stops short of a clean 5.

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?

It clearly states the two invocation modes: no arguments yields the catalogue of every tool and its operations, while arguments yield one operation's complete parameter definition. What's missing is explicit guidance on prerequisites or ordering (e.g., 'call this first to discover valid tool/operation values before invoking one'), and no when-not-to-use exclusions are given.

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