mcp-bw-modelling-api

get_composite_provider_parts

Retrieve the part providers (data sources) of a CompositeProvider by its technical name. Use to identify underlying data sources for analysis.

Instructions

Get the part providers (data sources) of a CompositeProvider.

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_composite_provider_parts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object_name`	Yes	Technical name of the CompositeProvider (e.g. "ZSDHCPR01").

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, and gives no hints about potential errors, permission requirements, or side effects. For a getter, it likely performs a read, but this is not stated.

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 exactly one sentence with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded and clear, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the input schema covers the parameter. However, the description lacks any behavioral or usage context, and the absence of annotations underscores that this is a minimal description. Still, for a simple getter tool, it is arguably adequate, hence a mid-level score.

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 the parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'part providers (data sources) of a CompositeProvider'. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_object_details, though it does not explicitly reference any alternative or contrast.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server