Skip to main content
Glama
MCP SAP GUI Server

MCP SAP GUI Server

by kts982

Sap Read Shell Content

sap_read_shell_content
Read-only

Reads content from a GuiShell subtype such as an HTMLViewer, returning its page text and URL. Use it to extract text from embedded browser shells after locating the shell element ID.

Instructions

Read content from a GuiShell subtype (e.g., HTMLViewer).

An HTML viewer's page text and URL are readable only with the Internet Explorer browser control; with the Edge control (SAP GUI 7.70+ default, e.g. the F1 Performance Assistant) the response says so in note. Use sap_get_screen_elements first to find shell element IDs.

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": {
      "shell_id": "<shell_id>"
    },
    "name": "sap_read_shell_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shell_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

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 the description need not restate safety. It adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: IE-only readability for HTMLViewer text/URL and the fact that Edge returns an explanatory note.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the core purpose and following with the key limitation and prerequisite. No wasted text.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the needed calling context: what GuiShell content means, the browser-control limitation, and how to obtain shell_id. Little is missing for a one-parameter read 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% for the single shell_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It usefully says to obtain shell IDs via sap_get_screen_elements, but does not describe the ID format or what a valid value looks like.

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: reading content from a GuiShell subtype such as HTMLViewer. It is clearly narrower than sibling read tools like sap_read_field or sap_read_textedit, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite by instructing the agent to use sap_get_screen_elements first to find shell element IDs. It also explains the Edge-control limitation, but does not name alternatives for that unsupported case.

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