MCP para Primavera Unifier

unifier_find_bp_record

Locate a Primavera Unifier business process record number across multiple BPs and shells. Query specified targets and return only matching records without making changes.

Instructions

Buscador de un record_no en varios BPs y shells conocidos. Consulta cada objetivo indicado y devuelve únicamente las coincidencias; no realiza escrituras.

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": {
      "record_no": "<record_no>",
      "targets": "<targets>"
    },
    "name": "unifier_find_bp_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`targets`	Yes
`record_no`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits: read-only ("no realiza escrituras") and filtered output ("devuelve únicamente las coincidencias"). However, it omits auth/permission requirements, target-count limits, error behavior when a target is unreachable, and what a match contains.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: the scope is stated first, then the read-only/no-write guarantee. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the return shape (what a match looks like) and the composition of targets. Neither is covered, leaving significant gaps an agent must guess at.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names record_no implicitly and refers vaguely to "cada objetivo indicado" for targets, but never explains that each target needs both bpname and project_number, nor the 20-item cap. The nested structure is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it searches a record_no across multiple BPs and shells, and returns only matches. Clear enough to select over siblings, though domain jargon ("BP", "shell") is undefined and it does not distinguish itself from unifier_list_bp_records or unifier_inspect_bp.

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 only says what the tool does ("Consulta cada objetivo indicado"), with no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as unifier_list_bp_records or unifier_inspect_bp. Usage is implied at best.

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

Deploy Server