search_message_mappingsLocate message mappings in SAP Cloud Platform Integration by ID, name, or version. Use this tool for direct entity lookup when you need mapping details from the CPI OData API.
Search message mappings by ID and version (direct entity lookup).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| version | 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 covers the read-only nature. The description adds little behavioral context beyond 'direct entity lookup' – it doesn't explain what happens on no match, multiple matches, or any error behavior. Given the annotation, this is acceptable but not enhanced.
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 fluff. It immediately states the purpose and the key qualifier, making it easy to scan.
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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover the 'name' parameter, doesn't describe return format or pagination, and doesn't explain behavior when no results are found. This leaves an agent guessing on critical aspects.
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 mentions ID and version but omits the 'name' parameter entirely, leaving that parameter's role unexplained. It does not clarify the meaning of 'version' or how parameters interact.
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 clearly states a specific verb (search) and resource (message mappings), and specifies that it's a direct entity lookup by ID and version. This differentiates it from generic search tools, though it doesn't mention the name parameter, which slightly reduces completeness.
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 phrase 'direct entity lookup' implies use when you have an ID and version, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_message_mappings or other search tools. No exclusions or alternate conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.