Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP SAP GUI Server

MCP SAP GUI Server

by kts982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sap Get Transaction Guide

sap_get_transaction_guide
Read-only

Returns a read-first guide for supported SAP transactions like /SCWM/MON, SM30, and SM34, explaining tree navigation, ALV results, table maintenance, and saving steps before you act.

Instructions

Return a generic, read-first guide for a supported SAP transaction.

Available transactions:

  • /SCWM/MON: EWM Warehouse Monitor with tree navigation and ALV results.

  • SM30: table/view maintenance and view clusters (SM34) - also what most IMG activities open: reading the table, the docked dialog-structure tree, new entries, saving and the customizing request prompt.

Aliases accepted: SCWM/MON, warehouse monitor, ewm warehouse monitor, SM34, table maintenance, view maintenance, view cluster.

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": {
      "transaction": "<transaction>"
    },
    "name": "sap_get_transaction_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNo
transactionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that ('read-first guide'). It adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the guide is generic (not session-bound) and it spells out what each guide covers — tree navigation, ALV results, docked dialog-structure tree, saving, and the customizing request prompt. What it does not disclose is behavior for an unsupported transaction name.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a scannable per-transaction breakdown and an alias list, which is the right order for a lookup tool. There is minor redundancy — SM34 is described inside the SM30 bullet and then repeated in the alias list — but nothing wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the supported-transaction list makes the core call unambiguous. The gap is the undocumented 'task' parameter: an agent cannot tell whether it scopes or filters the guide, which is a real omission for a two-parameter tool.

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 parameter meaning. It does well for the required 'transaction' parameter, enumerating valid values and accepted aliases (SCWM/MON, warehouse monitor, SM34, view cluster). But the second parameter, 'task', is never mentioned anywhere, leaving its purpose and format entirely unexplained.

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 ('Return a generic, read-first guide for a supported SAP transaction') and immediately bounds the scope with an enumerated list of supported transactions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from a sibling like sap_get_workflow_guide or position itself relative to sap_execute_transaction, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Read-first guide' implies the tool should be consulted before driving a transaction, which is a usable but implicit usage signal. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do for an unsupported transaction, and no named alternative for the case where the agent wants to actually run the transaction.

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