Skip to main content
Glama
MCP SAP GUI Server

MCP SAP GUI Server

by kts982

Sap Collapse Tree Node

sap_collapse_tree_node

Collapse a folder node in an SAP GUI tree control, such as SPRO or customizing trees, to hide its child items and reduce visible hierarchy.

Instructions

Collapse a folder node in a tree control (e.g. SPRO/customizing tree).

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": {
      "tree_id": "<tree_id>",
      "node_key": "<node_key>"
    },
    "name": "sap_collapse_tree_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tree_idYes
node_keyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only and not destructive, which is consistent with a UI state change. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the one-line purpose: it does not say whether the node must be visible or expanded, what happens if it is already collapsed, or what side effects occur.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, even though it is under-informative in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool is a simple UI action, so the description need not explain return values. However, with two undocumented required parameters and no behavioral detail beyond the basic action, the definition is only minimally complete for reliable invocation.

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, but it provides no explanation of tree_id or node_key. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but there is no guidance on acceptable values, how to obtain them, or formatting.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Collapse a folder node in a tree control,' and gives SPRO/customizing as a concrete example. It is clearly distinguishable from expand_tree_node by the word 'collapse,' though it does not explicitly mention that sibling or other tree-related alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sap_expand_tree_node, sap_select_tree_node, or sap_read_tree. The use case is implied by 'collapse a folder node,' but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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