@pired/sap-fiori-mcp-server

Get details of a CDS definition (CAP)

get_cap_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full metadata for any CAP CDS definition: elements with types and annotations, associations, actions, functions, projections, and includes.

Instructions

Returns full details of one CDS definition: elements with types and annotations, associations (target, cardinality, on-condition), actions/functions, projections and includes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectPath`	No	CAP project root
`definitionName`	Yes	Definition name (short or fully qualified), e.g. 'Books' or 'my.bookshop.Books'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`line`	No
`name`	Yes
`source`	No
`actions`	No
`elements`	No
`includes`	No
`namespace`	No
`shortName`	Yes
`annotations`	No
`projectionOn`	No
`exposedByServices`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.26.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned details but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists the specific content areas. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only nature, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention behavior when a definition is not found, but that is minor given the other structured signals.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, keeping it at the baseline 3.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('full details of one CDS definition') and enumerates the exact contents (elements, associations, actions/functions, projections, includes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_functionality_details or search_model.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 (e.g., search_model, get_api_reference). The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which an agent should choose it, nor any exclusions.

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