Skip to main content
Glama
MCP SAP GUI Server

MCP SAP GUI Server

by kts982

Sap Select Radio Button

sap_select_radio_button

Selects a radio button on the current SAP screen. Use sap_get_screen_elements with type_filter='GuiRadioButton' to find the radio button ID before selecting it.

Instructions

Select a radio button on the current SAP screen.

Use sap_get_screen_elements with type_filter='GuiRadioButton' to find radio button IDs on the current screen.

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": {
      "radio_id": "<radio_id>"
    },
    "name": "sap_select_radio_button"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
radio_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds that it acts on the current SAP screen and requires an ID discovered through another tool, but it does not explain whether selection triggers screen events, requires an active session, or changes navigation state.

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 action and followed by the discovery instruction. No unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter UI mutation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and ID discovery adequately. It could mention session requirements or post-selection behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 parameter meaning. It does this well by naming the exact source of valid radio_id values via sap_get_screen_elements with type_filter='GuiRadioButton', though it does not specify the exact string format.

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: selecting a radio button on the current SAP screen. It is clear enough to distinguish from adjacent controls such as checkboxes, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like sap_select_checkbox or sap_press_button.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: use sap_get_screen_elements with type_filter='GuiRadioButton' to discover valid radio button IDs. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to choose this over sap_select_checkbox, but the usage context is clear.

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