get_binary_parametersRetrieve binary parameters from SAP CPI Partner Directory, including XSLTs and certificates. Filter, sort, and paginate results to manage security artifacts.
List Partner Directory binary parameters (XSLTs, certificates, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| select | No | ||
| orderby | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool read-only, and the description's 'List' aligns with that. It adds context about the content type (binary parameters like XSLTs and certificates), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, defaults for top/skip, filtering semantics, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, with a short parenthetical giving useful concrete examples. There is no redundant or filler wording.
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?
The description covers the core 'what' of the tool, and the readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. However, all five parameters are unexplained, and there is no mention of pagination, filtering, or response format, so an agent cannot confidently construct a non-default request.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for top, skip, filter, select, or orderby. Although these are generic OData-style parameter names, their expected formats, default values, and supported filters are completely undocumented, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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 states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'Partner Directory binary parameters', with helpful examples (XSLTs, certificates). It clearly identifies what the tool operates on, and the resource type distinguishes it from siblings like get_string_parameters and get_secure_parameters, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative getters or search tools. The description does not mention that other parameter types have separate tools, nor does it explain when a search variant might be preferable. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.