Skip to main content
Glama
lingcSun

mcp-bw-adt-api

by lingcSun

bw_datasource_details

Get parsed DataSource details from SAP BW. Use outputPath to write the complete result to a file and receive a summary, avoiding large inline responses.

Instructions

Get parsed DataSource details. Prefer outputPath.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
datasourceYes
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.
sourceSystemYes
forceCacheUpdateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'parsed' details and the outputPath behavior (writing full results to a file, returning a summary envelope), which provides useful behavior insight. However, it doesn't mention read-only nature or side effects, but "Get" implies read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short, which is concise, but it undersells the tool's capability. The outputPath parameter's description is long but that's part of the schema. The main description lacks structure and detail, though it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool is not overly complex and has no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, without annotations or more details on return format, prerequisites, or examples, it's moderately incomplete. The outputPath detail helps but doesn't cover all aspects.

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 low (25%), but the outputPath parameter has a rich description explaining its purpose and behavior. The description itself adds context about 'parsed' details. Other parameters (datasource, sourceSystem, forceCacheUpdate) lack description-level context, so the description adds some value.

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 'Get parsed DataSource details' but is brief and doesn't differentiate from siblings like bw_datasource_get_xml or bw_datasource_fields. The core purpose is clear even without sibling comparison.

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?

The description mentions 'Prefer outputPath' without explaining when to use it vs. not. It implies usage context but lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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