Skip to main content
Glama
lingcSun

mcp-bw-adt-api

by lingcSun
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bw_dtp_details

Get parsed DTP details from SAP BW: fields, filter, and program flow extracted from the XML tree. Use outputPath to write the full result to a file.

Instructions

Get parsed-and-projected DTP details (fields, filter, program flow extracted from the XML tree). Prefer outputPath.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
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.
forceCacheUpdateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 only says the tool returns parsed-and-projected details and to prefer outputPath. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return envelope looks like, how forceCacheUpdate affects behavior, or what happens when outputPath is not used.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by a single actionable usage preference. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape and parameter behavior, but it does not. The outputPath schema covers one parameter, but the tool's overall behavior, return format, and relationship to sibling DTP tools remain under-specified.

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 only 33%, with outputPath documented but id and forceCacheUpdate left undescribed. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond 'Prefer outputPath' and does not define what id refers to or what forceCacheUpdate controls, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get parsed-and-projected DTP details' and enumerates the content ('fields, filter, program flow extracted from the XML tree'). This clearly distinguishes it from raw-XML sibling tools like bw_dtp_get_xml.

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?

'Prefer outputPath' gives a useful parameter-level usage hint, and the outputPath schema description adds context about when to use it. However, the description does not explain when to choose bw_dtp_details over sibling DTP tools such as bw_dtp_check, bw_dtp_get_xml, or bw_dtp_versions, so the overall usage guidance is only implied.

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