bw-modeling-mcp

bw_get_dtps

List Data Transfer Processes (DTPs) that depend on a specified BW object. Use object type and object name to identify affected DTPs, such as after activating a transformation.

Instructions

List DTPs (Data Transfer Processes) that depend on a BW object. Uses the xref endpoint filtered to DTPA object type. Use object_type=TRFN and the transformation name to find DTPs after activating a transformation.

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": {
      "object_type": "<object_type>",
      "object_name": "<object_name>"
    },
    "name": "bw_get_dtps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object_name`	Yes	Object name to find dependent DTPs for.
`object_type`	Yes	Object type of the referenced object: ADSO, TRFN, IOBJ, etc.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the 'xref endpoint filtered to DTPA object type,' which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or error handling. As a read-only operation, the lack of destructive hints is acceptable but could be clearer.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a technical detail. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of DTP names/IDs). For a list tool, omitting the return format is a gap. However, the description is adequate for basic use. Not fully complete.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a usage hint for object_type=TRFN but does not enhance the semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'DTPs (Data Transfer Processes)' and specifies the context 'that depend on a BW object.' It distinguishes from siblings like bw_get_dtp (single DTP) by focusing on dependents.

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?

Provides a concrete usage example: 'Use object_type=TRFN and the transformation name to find DTPs after activating a transformation.' This gives clear guidance for a common use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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

Deploy Server