MCP SAP GUI Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sap Get Table Control Row Info

sap_get_table_control_row_info

Read-only

Retrieves selectable and selected metadata for rows in a SAP GUI table control, querying all visible rows when no row list is provided; does not support ALV grids.

Instructions

Get row metadata (selectable, selected) from a GuiTableControl.

If rows is omitted, queries all visible rows. Does NOT work on ALV grids.

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": {
      "table_id": "<table_id>"
    },
    "name": "sap_get_table_control_row_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rows`	No
`table_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the GuiTableControl-vs-ALV scope boundary and the default all-visible-rows behavior when the optional parameter is absent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, then the default, then the exclusion. No filler at all.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, defaults, and the main exclusion. The only real gap is the source/format expectation for table_id.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It explains the rows parameter's default behavior well, but says nothing about what table_id refers to or how to obtain it, leaving the required parameter undocumented in every field.

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 ("Get row metadata") and names the exact fields returned (selectable, selected) on a GuiTableControl. It also carves out ALV grids, which separates it from the ALV-oriented siblings, though it doesn't distinguish itself explicitly from adjacent readers like sap_get_cell_info or sap_get_column_info.

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?

"If rows is omitted, queries all visible rows" gives clear invocation context, and "Does NOT work on ALV grids" is an explicit exclusion. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for ALV grids, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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

Deploy Server