bw-modeling-mcp

bw_set_transformation_routine

Add start, end, or expert routine to an SAP BW transformation. Create the global routine group and ABAP/AMDP method stub, returning a lock handle for activation.

Instructions

Add a Start, End, or Expert routine to a Transformation. Creates the global routine group (group id="0") and ABAP/AMDP method stub. Returns lock_handle for bw_activate.

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": {
      "transformation_name": "<transformation_name>",
      "routine_type": "<routine_type>"
    },
    "name": "bw_set_transformation_routine"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`transport`	No	Transport request number (e.g. DEVK900123). Only required if the BW system requires transport assignment.
`routine_type`	Yes	"start" → GLOBAL_START, "end" → GLOBAL_END, "expert" → GLOBAL_EXPERT.
`transformation_name`	Yes	Transformation name (UUID-like key).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It explains the creation of routine group and method stub, and the return value (lock_handle), but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or how conflicts are handled.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides the outcome and return value. Front-loaded and 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value. It covers the main behavior and the optional transport parameter. Lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., transformation must exist), but overall adequate for a simple creation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the return value (lock_handle) but does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Add') and resources ('routine to a Transformation'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_delete_transformation_routine by specifying the creation of global routine group and method stub.

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?

While the purpose implies when to use it (when adding a routine), there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server