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

bw-modeling-mcp

by dnic-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bw_get_composite_provider

Read a CompositeProvider (HCPR) structure, including view type, source providers, field mappings, join conditions, and temporal joins, returning the inactive version.

Instructions

Read a CompositeProvider (HCPR) structure — general info, view node type (Union/Join), source providers (inputs) with mapping counts, fields with their field group (dimension) and, for InfoObject-bound fields, their name usage ("direct" or "unique_name" — a query finds a "unique_name" field only under "-") and the navigation attributes switched on ("<FIELD_IOBJ>__<ATTR_NAME>"), the declared field groups, join condition, and temporal join details. Returns the inactive version.

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": {
      "composite_provider_name": "<composite_provider_name>"
    },
    "name": "bw_get_composite_provider"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
composite_provider_nameYesTechnical name of the CompositeProvider (e.g. "HCPR_NAME").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 makes clear this is a non-mutating read and discloses the important nuance that the inactive version is returned, plus a detailed list of returned structures. It does not cover permission requirements or behavior when the provider does not exist.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the rest is a single very long run-on sentence with heavy nested parentheticals, which makes it harder to scan than separate clauses would be. There is little outright filler, but readability suffers.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe what comes back, and it does so thoroughly (view node type, source providers, field groups, name usage, navigation attributes, join condition, temporal join). Gaps remain around error/absence behavior and version handling beyond the inactive note.

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% and the sole parameter is documented in the schema with an example format, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Read a CompositeProvider (HCPR) structure") and then enumerates the contents returned, which no sibling tool covers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as bw_update_composite_provider or bw_get_adso, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the create/update counterparts, and no stated prerequisites or preconditions. The only contextual hint is "Returns the inactive version," which is a caveat rather than routing advice.

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