get_integration_runtime_artifactsRetrieve SAP Cloud Platform Integration runtime artifacts. Apply filters to locate artifacts by status or ID for monitoring and management.
Get all integration runtime artifacts. Supports $filter with eq operator (e.g. Status eq 'STARTED', Id eq 'myflow').
| 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which the description matches with 'Get.' The description adds the detail that filtering supports the eq operator with examples, which is a behavioral capability not fully covered by the schema. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, return format, or error handling. With readOnlyHint already covering the read-only nature, this adds moderate value.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides filter detail. Information is front-loaded and every word 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 tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only explains filter, leaving the other OData-style parameters unexplained. It also doesn't mention the relationship to search_integration_runtime_artifacts. An agent would lack sufficient context to correctly use the tool beyond basic filtering.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the filter parameter with syntax and examples, which is helpful. But top, skip, select, and orderby are left completely undocumented. The description only covers one of five parameters, failing to adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get all integration runtime artifacts.' It identifies the tool's primary action and the object it operates on. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_integration_runtime_artifacts, though the name and 'all' imply a listing behavior. It's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the search variant or other sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions that would select one over the other. The phrase 'Get all' hints at a broad list, but the description does not state when to prefer this over search_integration_runtime_artifacts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.