Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bosch-flow-mcp

bosch-flow-mcp

by partymola
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

bosch_get_software_updates

Retrieve Bosch eBike firmware and software update history, including updated components, version changes, and dates; filter by bike ID and date range via the EU Data Act API.

Instructions

Get software update installation history for your Bosch eBike.

Returns all firmware/software update reports, showing which components were updated, from which version to which version, and when.

This history comes only from the EU Data Act API; with a standard Bosch eBike Flow sign-in it is empty (current firmware is still available via components).

Args: bike_id: Optional bike UUID to filter to one bike. start_date: Start date (YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM, or Nd). Default: all records. end_date: End date. Default: today.

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": "bosch_get_software_updates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bike_idNo
end_dateNo
start_dateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "bosch_get_software_updatesOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Addedv0.2.3
  3. Removedv0.2.2
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data-source constraint (EU Data Act API only) that will produce empty results for most sign-ins, describes the shape of each record, and states default date behavior. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or permission requirements, which is the remaining behavioral gap for a history-list tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The return-value summary is front-loaded, followed by the data-source caveat and an explicit Args block, so an agent can stop reading after the first two sentences. Minor redundancy exists between the prose defaults and the Args defaults, but nothing is wasted enough to hurt.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, data availability, and every parameter's semantics. Only pagination or volume expectations are left unstated, which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 entirely, and it does: bike_id is identified as an optional bike UUID filter, start_date documents accepted formats (YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM, Nd) plus its 'all records' default, and end_date states its 'today' default. This is well beyond the bare 'string' types in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get software update installation history for your Bosch eBike,' then enumerates the returned fields (which components, from/to version, when). It also distinguishes itself from bosch_get_components by noting that current firmware lives there, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 gives a clear when-not-to-expect-data condition ('comes only from the EU Data Act API; with a standard Bosch eBike Flow sign-in it is empty') and redirects to components for current firmware. What it does not spell out is how to choose between this and bosch_get_service_records, or when date filtering is recommended versus omitted, so a small routing gap remains.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools