Query a SAP service’s OData v2 entity set using select, filter, orderby, top, skip, and expand to retrieve read-only business data for finance workflows.
Generic OData v2 query ($select/$filter/$orderby/$top/$skip/$expand) on a service's entity set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| expand | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| select | No | ||
| orderby | No | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| entity_set | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the implied read semantics of 'query'. It says nothing about permission/auth requirements, server-side limits on $top, paging behavior of $skip, throttling, or what happens on invalid filter syntax.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource scope first and the accepted options in a compact parenthetical. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing to trim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With eight parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, this definition is thin for the tool's complexity. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description should still cover filter/host syntax, service and entity_set identification, and pagination semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping six of the eight parameters to their OData system options ($select/$filter/$orderby/$top/$skip/$expand). However, it gives no syntax examples for filter/orderby, no guidance on expand navigation-property naming, and leaves service and entity_set undocumented. Partial compensation only.
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?
The description states a concrete verb (query) and resource (a service's entity set) and enumerates the OData v2 system query options it supports. An agent can tell this is a generic OData read against an arbitrary entity set, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like read_sap_table or aggregate_sap_table.
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 mention of when this is the wrong choice (e.g. versus read_sap_table or aggregate_sap_table), and no stated prerequisites such as login or environment selection. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the OData vocabulary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.