List configured BW environment profiles and identify the active one, including name, baseUrl, username, client, language, and readOnly status. No network call required.
List configured BW environment profiles and which one is active. Each profile includes name, baseUrl, username, client, language, and readOnly. No network call. Prefer this (or bw_system_status) before bw_env_switch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses 'No network call,' which signals a safe, local read operation, and clarifies it returns profile fields plus the active profile. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the output fields, safety-relevant no-network-call behavior, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with low complexity, the description is complete. It names the returned profile fields, states that no network call is made, and situates the tool before bw_env_switch in the workflow. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it instead provides useful context about what the output contains. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List configured BW environment profiles and which one is active.' It clearly conveys the tool's scope and mentions the output fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from bw_system_status, but the action and resource are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit placement guidance: 'Prefer this (or bw_system_status) before bw_env_switch.' This tells the agent when to call it relative to a sibling tool. It lacks a clear 'when not to use' statement or stronger exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.