Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP SAP GUI Server

MCP SAP GUI Server

by kts982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sap Get Column Info

sap_get_column_info
Read-only

Retrieve column names, titles, tooltips, data types, key flags, and cell templates from SAP ALV grids or table controls to map table fields for automation.

Instructions

Get detailed column info from an ALV grid or table control.

Returns column names, titles and tooltips; for an ALV grid also each column's data_type (string, date, decimal, ...) and key flag, for a table control each column's cell_type and cell_id template. For a lighter alternative, use sap_read_table with columns_only=true.

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": {
      "grid_id": "<grid_id>"
    },
    "name": "sap_get_column_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
grid_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's remaining content is mostly return-value enumeration, which the existing output schema already provides, and it says nothing about prerequisites (active session, grid must be present on screen) or failure behavior for a bad grid_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact per-type breakdown, then the alternative — a sensible order with no filler. The return-field enumeration is slightly redundant against the output schema, costing a point on economy.

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?

With an output schema and read-only annotations present, the description only needs to cover invocation context — and the one genuine gap is grid_id provenance and the requirement that a grid/table control be on the current screen. For a one-parameter introspection tool that gap is narrow but real.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for grid_id, and it never explains what a grid_id is or how to obtain one (e.g. from sap_get_screen_elements). The reference to 'ALV grid or table control' gives partial inference, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than failing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed column info') and enumerates exactly what comes back for each of the two supported container types (ALV grid vs. table control). It also names the lighter sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from sap_read_table and sap_get_cell_info without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly offers the alternative: 'For a lighter alternative, use sap_read_table with columns_only=true' — that is a real routing decision the agent can act on. It stops short of stating preconditions or when-not-to-use (e.g. no grid on the current screen), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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