Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP SAP GUI Server

MCP SAP GUI Server

by kts982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sap Get Combobox Entries

sap_get_combobox_entries
Read-only

List all values in a SAP GUI combobox or dropdown and return key-value pairs so you can identify valid selections.

Instructions

List all entries in a combobox/dropdown.

Returns key-value pairs so you know which values are valid.

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": {
      "combobox_id": "<combobox_id>"
    },
    "name": "sap_get_combobox_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
combobox_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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are key-value pairs, which is useful context, but it does not describe errors, permissions, or behavior for invalid combobox IDs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful note on return shape. There is no redundant or filler 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 tool is simple, read-only, and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, the missing parameter explanation and lack of guidance on where to get combobox_id leave a meaningful gap for an agent invoking it in SAP automation.

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%, and the description never explains the required combobox_id parameter—what format it expects, where to obtain it, or whether it refers to a screen element ID. The single obvious parameter name helps, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all entries in a combobox/dropdown.' This clearly distinguishes a read/discovery operation from the sibling selection tool, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sap_select_combobox_entry.

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 phrase 'so you know which values are valid' implies this should be used before selecting a combobox entry, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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