Skip to main content
Glama
lingcSun

mcp-bw-adt-api

by lingcSun

bw_transport_check

Check if saving an SAP BW object requires a transport request; returns the recording flag (X = mandatory) and the current development class.

Instructions

Check whether saving an object requires a transport request. Returns recording flag (X = transport mandatory) and the current dev class.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYesObject URI to check.
devclassNoDevelopment class.
operationNo
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

A3.7/5.0
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. It discloses return semantics and the meaning of the recording flag ('X = transport mandatory'), and the verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention permissions, error behavior, or side effects. Some behavioral context is present, but the safety profile is under-specified.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return semantics are stated concisely in the second sentence. Every word contributes.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple check tool but incomplete in several ways: it lacks an output schema, has no annotations, leaves the 'operation' parameter unexplained, and provides no usage guidance or sibling differentiation. It covers the core purpose and return flag meaning, but an agent would still need to infer side-effect safety and parameter details.

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 75% (uri, devclass, and outputPath are described), leaving 'operation' undocumented. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it mentions 'saving an object' and 'dev class' in the return context, which slightly reinforces the domain but does not clarify the undocumented operation parameter or detail how devclass affects the check.

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 ('check') and resource ('whether saving an object requires a transport request'), and it names the return values (recording flag and dev class). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling *_check tools like bw_dtp_check and bw_trfn_check by focusing on transport-request requirements rather than DTP or transformation checks.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this when saving an object and needing to know if a transport request is required. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention or contrast any sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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