@pired/sap-fiori-mcp-server

Generate a Fiori elements app inside a CAP project

generate_fiori_app_cap

Create a SAP Fiori elements application inside an existing CAP project from a CDS entity, auto-wiring it to the CAP service and resolving associations.

Instructions

Generates a new SAP Fiori elements application inside an existing SAP CAP project (app/ folder), based on an entity of the project's CDS model. Reads the CDS model to resolve the main entity and its to-many associations, and wires the app to the CAP service.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Application title shown in the shell
`addFcl`	No	Enable Flexible Column Layout (default true for V4)
`appName`	Yes	App name, used as folder name (e.g. 'travels')
`entitySet`	No	Main entity set (optional if metadata is provided)
`floorplan`	No	Floorplan: 'list-report' (LR+ObjectPage), 'object-page' (form entry) or 'worklist'. CAP apps are OData V4.	list-report
`namespace`	No	App id namespace (default 'ns' for OData / 'cap.app' for CAP)
`description`	No	Application description
`initialLoad`	No	Set initialLoad:true so the List Report table loads without pressing Go (default true for 'worklist')
`serviceName`	No	CDS service whose entity is exposed (e.g. CatalogService). Auto-detected when omitted.
`capProjectPath`	Yes	Root of the CAP project (contains package.json with @sap/cds and db/srv folders)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appPath`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`nextSteps`	Yes
`serviceUri`	No
`createdFiles`	Yes
`resolvedService`	No
`resolvedEntitySet`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.26.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide no safety hints, so the description carries the burden; it discloses that the tool reads the CDS model, resolves to-many associations, and wires the app to the CAP service. This goes beyond a generic 'generate' statement, though it could still be more explicit about overwrite behavior or exactly which files are modified.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the behavioral detail in the second sentence. There is no filler or repeated information from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter code-generation tool, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: existing CAP project, app/ folder, CDS entity resolution, and service wiring. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the parameter schema covers individual options; a small gap is the lack of explicit idempotency or overwrite behavior.

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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds contextual information about CDS-model resolution and service wiring, but no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('generates'), names the target resource (a SAP Fiori elements app inside an existing CAP project's app/ folder), and specifies the source input (an entity of the project's CDS model). The CAP/CDS focus clearly differentiates it from siblings like generate_fiori_app_odata and create_ui5_app.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states the tool is for an existing SAP CAP project and that it uses a CDS entity, which gives an agent enough context to know when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the provided context is more than merely implied.

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