Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP SAP GUI Server

MCP SAP GUI Server

by kts982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sap Press Column Header

sap_press_column_header

Clicks a column header in an ALV grid to trigger sorting; use only with ALV grids, not GuiTableControl.

Instructions

Click a column header in an ALV grid (triggers sort). Does NOT work on GuiTableControl.

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>",
      "column": "<column>"
    },
    "name": "sap_press_column_header"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
columnYes
grid_idYes

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 only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's disclosure that the click triggers a sort is real added context — the agent knows UI state changes. The GuiTableControl limitation is a useful behavioral constraint; what's missing is error/failure behavior or what happens on a non-sortable column.

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, zero waste, with the primary action and its effect front-loaded before the limitation. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 not be explained, and the purpose/limitation are covered. The remaining gap is parameter format detail, which is the one thing an agent still needs before calling.

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%: neither grid_id nor column is documented in the schema, and the description adds no format guidance (e.g., is 'column' a header text, field name, or index?). With both parameters required and undocumented, the agent must guess the identifier convention.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Click a column header in an ALV grid') and adds the effect '(triggers sort)', so the agent knows exactly what happens. It differentiates from table-control siblings by excluding GuiTableControl, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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 negative guidance ('Does NOT work on GuiTableControl') is a genuine exclusion, and sorting is implied as the use case. However, it never names the sibling tool to use instead for GuiTableControl, leaving the agent to infer the alternative from a 55-tool list.

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