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

bw-modeling-mcp

by dnic-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bw_run_dtp

Start an active DTP data load and receive a unique request ID to track its progress directly without needing a separate lookup.

Instructions

Start (execute) a run of an existing, active DTP. Triggers the load with a single request and returns the new run request id. The returned request_id is the RSPM request TSN: pass it straight into bw_get_request (as request_tsn) to monitor load status — no bw_list_requests lookup needed.

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": {
      "dtp_name": "<dtp_name>"
    },
    "name": "bw_run_dtp"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dtp_nameYesTechnical name of the DTP to run (e.g. "DTP_...").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that it triggers a load and returns a request_id, but does not disclose whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, or potential side effects like concurrent run restrictions.

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, no redundancy, efficient. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second explains output usage.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite (existing active DTP), action, and follow-up step. Lacks error scenario details but is sufficient for typical use.

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 description adds a usage example ('e.g. "DTP..."'). This provides slight additional clarity but does not significantly exceed what the schema already conveys.

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 tool starts an existing active DTP run. It differentiates from siblings by explaining that the returned request_id can be passed directly to bw_get_request, avoiding bw_list_requests.

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?

Explicitly states to use on an existing active DTP and guides how to monitor the load using the returned request_id with bw_get_request. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions.

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