Search normalized SAP Cloud Integration message metadata by status, time range, correlation ID, or integration flow to monitor processing and troubleshoot failed messages.
Search normalized message metadata (maximum 500 results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| endTime | No | ||
| messageId | No | ||
| startTime | No | ||
| correlationId | No | ||
| integrationFlow | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The only added claim, 'maximum 500 results', duplicates the schema's limit maximum of 500 rather than adding new behavioral context such as pagination, result ordering, or cross-flow scope.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words or filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects omission rather than thoughtful prioritization.
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 7-parameter search tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, one sentence is far too little. There is no indication of what fields are returned, how the filters combine, or how results are ordered/paginated, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it correctly.
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% across 7 parameters (status enum, startTime/endTime, messageId, correlationId, integrationFlow, limit), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. With zero schema documentation, the description was the only place to explain these filters and it explains none.
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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('normalized message metadata'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from get_message_details (single-message retrieval). However, it offers no differentiation from near-siblings like get_failed_messages, get_recent_failures, or get_error_details, which are also filtered message lookups.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to use this broad search or the more targeted get_failed_messages / get_recent_failures siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.