Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP SAP GUI Server

MCP SAP GUI Server

by kts982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sap Find Tree Node By Path

sap_find_tree_node_by_path
Read-only

Locate a SAP GUI tree node key by its child-index path, allowing precise identification of nested nodes for scripting and automation.

Instructions

Find a tree node key by its path.

E.g., '2\1\2' = 2nd child of root, then 1st child, then 2nd.

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "sap_find_tree_node_by_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
tree_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful path-format example and says the result is a node key, but it does not explain invalid-path behavior, lookup failure, or other operational details.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a directly useful example. There is no wasted text.

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 output schema and read-only annotations cover return shape and safety. However, the description omits the meaning and source of 'tree_id' and does not route the agent among similar tree-navigation tools, so it is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter well through the '2\1\2' example, but it says nothing about the required 'tree_id' parameter, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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 and resource: find a tree node key by its path. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as sap_search_tree_nodes or sap_get_tree_node_children.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like sap_search_tree_nodes, sap_read_tree, or sap_get_tree_node_children. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by its path'.

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