Retrieves available service binding types (e.g., ODataV2, ODataV4) from ADT Business Services for SAP service binding setup.
List available service binding types (for example ODataV2/ODataV4) from ADT Business Services endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | Shape of the answer: the document as the server sent it, the same parsed, or a flat list of the type names. | xml |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / response_format / descriptionAdded value: +"Shape of the answer: the document as the server sent it, the same parsed, or a flat list of the type names."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List available' implies a non-mutating read and it names the ADT Business Services endpoint as the data source, which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, result size, or whether the enumeration is cached or complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, examples, and the origin endpoint with no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves the return shape and any environment requirements to inference. It is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (response_format) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the xml/json/plain semantics fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('service binding types') with concrete examples (ODataV2/ODataV4) and the source endpoint. It is distinguishable from the sibling GetServiceBinding, which fetches a single binding rather than enumerating available types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as GetServiceBinding or CreateServiceBinding, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.