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

bw-modeling-mcp

by dnic-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bw_get_infosource

Retrieve an InfoSource structure to inspect fields, key fields, label, InfoArea, and version status for SAP BW modeling.

Instructions

Read an InfoSource (TRCS) structure — fields, key fields, label, InfoArea, version status.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "bw_get_infosource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesInfoSource name (e.g. "INFOSOURCE_NAME").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description states 'Read,' implying a non-destructive, idempotent operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, the transparency is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and lists the key components. There is no extraneous information, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 essential elements: the resource type and what the structure contains. It could be improved by noting the return format or whether the entire structure is returned, but it is largely 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with the single parameter 'name' already described as 'InfoSource name'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

Description clearly specifies the verb 'Read' and resource 'InfoSource (TRCS) structure', listing specific components like fields, key fields, label, InfoArea, version status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as bw_get_adso or bw_get_infoobject, which read different BW objects.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bw_get_adso or bw_get_infoobject. Given the large number of sibling tools, providing context on when to choose this tool would be beneficial for agent decision-making.

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