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

bw-modeling-mcp

by dnic-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bw_get_infoobject

Retrieve an existing SAP BW/4HANA InfoObject definition as full XML, including data type, length, conversion routine, and descriptions. Useful for inspecting object details before making changes.

Instructions

Read an InfoObject definition (must already exist in the system). Returns the full XML including data type, length, conversion routine, and descriptions.

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": {
      "infoobject_name": "<infoobject_name>"
    },
    "name": "bw_get_infoobject"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
infoobject_nameYesInfoObject name (e.g. "IOBJ_NAME").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation with no side effects, lists return fields (data type, length, etc.), and is consistent with the tool name.

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 a single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return content. It could optionally mention authorization or error conditions, but the current level is adequate.

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 a clear description. The tool description adds the constraint that the object must exist, which provides useful context beyond the schema, but does not add further detail about the parameter format or values.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('InfoObject definition'), and a constraint ('must already exist in the system'). It also specifies the return content, distinguishing it from creation tools like bw_create_infoobject.

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 usage for reading existing objects but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bw_update_infoobject) 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

Other Tools