Skip to main content
Glama
lingcSun

mcp-bw-adt-api

by lingcSun
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bw_adso_dtps

Find Data Transfer Processes (DTPs) for an ADSO by its technical name, showing each DTP as a SOURCE -> TARGET relation.

Instructions

Get DTPs related to an ADSO (via name search). Each DTP title carries a 'SOURCE -> TARGET' relation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adsoNameYesADSO technical name.
outputPathNoIf provided, the full result is written to this path (under the workdir) and the tool returns only a small summary envelope { ok, outputPath, bytes, summary }. Objects/arrays are written as JSON; ONLY the bw_*_get_xml family writes the raw XML string as plain text (that file is directly reusable as xmlPath in a later save call). Other *_get tools (e.g. bw_dtp_get, bw_trfn_get) write the PARSED XML-to-JSON tree, not raw XML — use the matching bw_*_get_xml tool when you need the raw XML string. Use outputPath for large responses (XML, table data, logs, dataflow graphs). When set, tools skip inline pagination/projection so the file contains the complete payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful output trait: each DTP title includes a 'SOURCE -> TARGET' relation, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, how name matching behaves, or what the complete return structure looks like without outputPath.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a valuable output detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the main result (DTP titles with SOURCE -> TARGET relations) and how to invoke it (adsoName). However, it lacks details about matching behavior, empty results, pagination, or the exact response envelope, which would be valuable given the absence of an output schema and annotations.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both adsoName and outputPath. The description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only hints at the adsoName usage through 'via name search'. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get DTPs') and the resource scope ('related to an ADSO'), with a specific search method ('via name search'). The second sentence adds useful clarification about the SOURCE -> TARGET relation carried by each DTP title. It is slightly vague about what 'related to' means exactly, but the relation hint helps distinguish this from other ADSO/DTP tools.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need DTPs associated with an ADSO by name search. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use this tool compared to sibling tools like bw_dtp_details or bw_adso_transformations. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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