Skip to main content
Glama
AnindyaDR-SAP

mcp-abap-adt

by AnindyaDR-SAP
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

RunAtc

Run ABAP Test Cockpit checks on ABAP objects to identify code issues, returning prioritized findings with check name, message, and source location.

Instructions

Run ABAP Test Cockpit (ATC) checks on an ABAP object and return findings with priority, check name, message, and source location.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxLinesNoMaximum lines to return (1-100000). Omit to request the rest; the byte cap may return fewer lines.
startLineNo1-based line number to start from (default 1). Beyond EOF returns an empty page with hasMore=false.
object_nameYesName of the ABAP object to check (e.g. ZC_TEST_STATUS, ZMY_PROGRAM)
object_typeYesType of the ABAP object. Supported values: PROG, PROG/P, PROG/I, CLAS, CLAS/OC, INTF, INTF/OI, FUGR, FUGR/F, DDLS, DDLS/DF, DEVC, DEVC/K
check_variantNoOptional ATC check variant name (e.g. S4HANA_READINESS_2023). Omit to use the system default.
maximum_verdictsNoMaximum number of ATC findings to return (default 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the returned finding fields, which is useful, but it does not mention whether running ATC checks has side effects, requires specific authorizations, or can be costly/long-running.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the target, and the key output fields efficiently.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is fairly thin. The output-field list and detailed parameter schema partially compensate, but the description omits usage context, result-ordering/truncation behavior, and how it relates to sibling ATC tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including example values for object_name and supported object_type values. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: running ABAP Test Cockpit (ATC) checks on an ABAP object, and it states what is returned (priority, check name, message, source location). This clearly separates it from the metadata-getter siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related ATC tools like FindCleanCoreViolations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use case is implied: call this when ATC findings are needed for an ABAP object. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of which sibling to prefer for clean-core-specific or remediation workflows.

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