SAP Digital Manufacturing (DMC) MCP Server

get_resource_status

Get the current status and detailed information of a resource in a plant to monitor production operations.

Instructions

Get status and details of a specific resource.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "resource": "<resource>"
    },
    "name": "get_resource_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plant`	No	Plant code. Allowed values: "VIJ_01", "M205". Defaults to "VIJ_01".
`resource`	Yes	Resource ID/Name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'Get status and details' but does not explain read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. This leaves important gaps for the agent.

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 description is a single concise sentence that is easy to parse. However, it could be slightly expanded to add more value without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of an output schema and only two parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, potential errors, or how the 'plant' parameter affects results. The agent is left to infer too much.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only restates 'resource' without explaining its role or the 'plant' parameter. The schema already describes both parameters adequately.

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 states the tool retrieves status and details for a specific resource, indicating a read operation. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_resources' or 'query_dmc_resources', which might serve similar purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_resources' or 'query_dmc_resources'. There is no context for prerequisites or conditions.

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