Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bc-source-mcp

bc-source-mcp

by glachana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List supported BC localizations

bc_list_localizations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a list of country/region codes and their human-readable names for Business Central localization branches, including the worldwide base 'w1'.

Instructions

Lists the country/region codes available as branches in the upstream repository, with their human-readable names. "w1" is the worldwide base.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bc_list_localizations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localizationsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it lists from the upstream repository and includes the 'w1' note, which is useful context. No contradictions, and the behavior is well-disclosed for a simple read operation.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose and a key detail. There is no wasted language, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the simplicity (no parameters, clear annotations, output schema exists), the description is sufficiently complete. It informs the user of the data returned and the special case 'w1'. Minor omission: could mention that the list is static or from a specific repository.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides enough context about what the output contains (codes and human-readable names, with 'w1' explained). Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (lists) and the resource (country/region codes available as branches, with human-readable names). The mention of 'w1' adds specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like bc_list_branches which list branches for other purposes.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no conditions or exclusions 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

Other Tools