mcp-bw-modelling-api

get_adso_fields

Retrieve the field list (InfoObjects) of an Advanced DataStore Object by providing its technical name.

Instructions

Get the field list (InfoObjects) of an Advanced DataStore Object.

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": {
      "object_name": "<object_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_adso_fields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object_name`	Yes	Technical name of the ADSO (e.g. "ZSDADSO01").

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but doesn't state whether any modification occurs, whether special permissions are required, or what happens on error. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.

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 concise sentence that identifies the action and the object. It is front-loaded and contains no clutter, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, fully documented in schema) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It tells what the tool does and the parameter is clear, so no critical information is missing.

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 fully describes the single parameter (object_name) with an example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and target ('field list (InfoObjects) of an Advanced DataStore Object'), which distinguishes it as a retrieval operation for ADSO fields. It is not tautological and identifies a specific resource type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like list_infoobjects or get_object_details.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as list_infoobjects or get_object_details. It only states what it does, leaving it to the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

Deploy Server