bw-modeling-mcp

bw_get_adso

Reads aDSO fields, settings, and version, plus current runtime mode for planning-enabled BW/4HANA objects. Inspect configuration before modeling or switching planning mode.

Instructions

Read an aDSO (Advanced DataStore Object) structure — fields, settings, version. For a planning-enabled aDSO on BW/4HANA the text output also shows the current runtime mode (planning or loading), which bw_set_adso_planning_mode switches.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "adso_name": "<adso_name>"
    },
    "name": "bw_get_adso"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	Output format. "text" (default): compact human-readable summary. "raw": raw XML from BW.
`adso_name`	Yes	aDSO name (e.g. "ADSO_NAME").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that text output shows runtime mode for planning-enabled aDSOs, but it does not describe permissions, error behavior, or confirm the absence of side effects beyond the word 'Read'.

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?

It is two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and scoped to the relevant planning-enabled case. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information to call it correctly and explains the key text-output nuance. Minor gaps remain around raw output behavior and error cases.

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 context for the format parameter by explaining that text output can show runtime mode for planning-enabled aDSOs, which helps an agent choose between text and raw formats.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: read an aDSO structure, including fields, settings, and version. That is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like bw_create_adso, bw_update_adso, and bw_set_adso_planning_mode.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this is the read tool for aDSO structures and references bw_set_adso_planning_mode for changing runtime mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other retrieval tools or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server