bw-modeling-mcp

bw_write_infosource

Create or update an SAP BW/4HANA InfoSource to define fields, labels, and source assignments, enabling modeling or adjustment of BW data sources.

Instructions

Create or change an InfoSource. The operation enum lists every operation with what it requires; bw_describe(tool: "bw_write_infosource", operation: "…") gives the complete parameter definition of one.

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": {
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "bw_write_infosource"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	InfoSource name (e.g. "INFOSOURCE_NAME").
`fields`	No	Fields to add (or whose label to update). Full definition: bw_describe(tool: "bw_write_infosource", operation: "update"). [update]
`package`	No	Development package (default "$TMP"). [create]
`info_area`	No	InfoArea to create the InfoSource in (e.g. "MCPBW"). [create]
`operation`	Yes	Operation — one of: create: Create a new InfoSource (TRCS) shell. Requires name, description, info_area. \| update: Update an InfoSource — change description, add/remove fields, and update labels. Requires name.
`transport`	No	Transport request number (e.g. DEVK900123). Only required if the BW system requires transport assignment. [update]
`description`	No	Defined per operation — bw_describe(tool: "bw_write_infosource", operation: "…") gives each definition.
`remove_fields`	No	Field names to remove from the InfoSource (e.g. FIELD_NAME). Other existing fields are preserved. [update]
`copy_from_object_name`	No	Technical name of the source object to copy fields from. Required when copy_from_object_type is set. [create]
`copy_from_object_type`	No	Type of the source object: ADSO (aDSO), HCPR (CompositeProvider), RSDS (DataSource), IOBJ (InfoObject). [create]
`copy_from_source_system`	No	Source system name (required when copy_from_object_type is RSDS, e.g. "PC_FILE"). [create]
`copy_from_object_sub_type`	No	SubType for IOBJ only: ATTR (Attribute), TEXT (Text), HIER (Hierarchy). [create]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses no side effects, permission requirements, or consequences beyond the word 'change'. It does not warn that created shells likely need activation, that transport assignment may be mandatory, or what happens to existing fields on update. The delegation to bw_describe is a pointer, not behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the mechanism for obtaining deeper detail. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on lifecycle context such as activation, transport handling, and error behavior. The bw_describe pointer mitigates the parameter gap, but an agent still lacks the operational context needed to call this confidently in a write workflow.

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 per-parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema, including enum values, defaults, and conditional requirements. The description adds only a routing hint to bw_describe for the complete definition, which is mildly useful but adds no semantics beyond the schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair, "Create or change an InfoSource", so the agent immediately knows the target object and that both creation and mutation are covered. It is clear against the sibling bw_write_* family by virtue of naming the distinct resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related writers such as bw_write_datasource.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader must infer that this is the tool for InfoSource shell creation and field/label changes, and the create-vs-update choice is pushed into the operation enum rather than explained. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance and no prerequisites such as when a transport is needed or whether activation is required afterwards.

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