abapsmith

abap_rap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a complete RAP stack (CDS, BDEF, class, SRVD, SRVB) from a table. Set ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE=true to get output; otherwise the tool returns a refusal.

Instructions

Generate a RAP stack (CDS, BDEF, class, SRVD, SRVB) from a table. LOCKED on this server: ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE does not enable writes, and ABAP_MODE is not set, so that variable is what decides it. Set ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE=true (ABAP_ALLOW_PACKAGES is optional — it narrows the default, which is every package). Calling it returns a refusal and sends nothing to the SAP system.

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": "abap_rap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.6.36Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool is locked on this server, 'sends nothing to the SAP system,' and returns a refusal. This clearly signals the current no-op behavior and matches the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the middle sentence is confusing: 'ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE does not enable writes' directly clashes with 'Set ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE=true,' and 'that variable' is ambiguous. It could be tightened and made internally consistent.

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?

Given that the tool currently returns a refusal and has no parameters, the description covers the immediate behavior and environment variables. It is incomplete for an enabled state, though, since it does not explain what a successful response would contain or what prerequisites (e.g., an existing table) are needed.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document; schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, and the environment-variable configuration guidance is the only relevant input-related context.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Generate a RAP stack (CDS, BDEF, class, SRVD, SRVB) from a table.' This clearly identifies the tool's intended function and separates it from generic ABAP siblings. However, the later claim that calling it 'returns a refusal' muddles whether it actually generates anything in the current server state.

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 description gives concrete setup guidance: set ABAP_ALLOW_WRITE=true and optionally ABAP_ALLOW_PACKAGES, and notes that calling without this returns a refusal. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over related ABAP tools or mention any alternatives, so 'when vs. alternatives' guidance is missing.

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