get_string_parametersList SAP CPI Partner Directory string parameters with filtering, sorting, and pagination via OData query options.
List Partner Directory string parameters (MaxJMSRetries, DLQ_EndEvent, 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 annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a read-only operation. The description's 'List' is consistent and clarifies that the result is a collection of parameters rather than a single record, but it adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, limits, or response shape. No contradiction.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The examples add useful context without bloating the description.
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?
While the read-only annotation and concise resource description help, the total absence of parameter semantics and any mention of response format leaves an agent to infer OData conventions and return structure. This is not complete enough for precise invocation.
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 schema has 5 parameters (top, skip, filter, select, orderby) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any of these query parameters or their syntax, and the provided examples are domain values, not input semantics. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific resource ('Partner Directory string parameters') and operation ('List'), with concrete examples (MaxJMSRetries, DLQ_EndEvent). The word 'string' also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_binary_parameters and get_secure_parameters.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_binary_parameters or get_secure_parameters. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria; the intended usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.