SAP Business One Order-to-Cash MCP Server

get_top_items

Identify best-selling products by sales amount, quantity, or gross profit within a date range. Use these results to prioritize high-performing items.

Instructions

Top selling items by sales amount or quantity — uses SMLSVC POST. Aggregates by ItemCode.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_top_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`topN`	No	Default 10
`sortBy`	No	NetSalesAmountLC \| QuantityInInventoryUoM \| GrossProfitLC
`toDate`	No
`fromDate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool uses SMLSVC POST and aggregates by ItemCode, which is useful context, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, what the response shape is, or whether there are side effects or 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?

The description is a single focused sentence, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the aggregation detail. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple list-style tool, the description plus schema is mostly usable, but the lack of annotations and output schema means an agent still has to guess at the return shape and exact date-range semantics. It would also benefit from routing guidance among the many sales-report siblings.

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?

The schema already documents topN's default and sortBy's candidate values, and the description adds some human-readable meaning by referring to 'sales amount or quantity'. However, fromDate and toDate receive no semantic explanation beyond their format, so the 50% schema coverage gap is not compensated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning top-selling items ranked by sales amount or quantity, and it adds the useful aggregation detail 'by ItemCode'. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like get_top_customers or get_sales_by_period, but the item-level sales focus is clear enough.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling sales-analysis tools, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The intended usage is only implied by the phrase 'Top selling items'.

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

Deploy Server