Retrieve the ADT core discovery document to verify an active connection to the ABAP system, ensuring the service is reachable before starting development tasks.
The core discovery document of the ADT service - what healthcheck calls to prove the connection is alive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these (a read-only discovery document). It adds a small behavioral hint that this is a lightweight connection-proving call, but does not enrich beyond that; there is no contradiction with the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core fact that this is the core discovery document. The trailing clause about healthcheck is slightly redundant but the overall length is appropriate and free of filler.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the resource and its connection-verification purpose, which is adequate. However, it leaves ambiguity about what the agent does with the returned document and how it differs from the adtDiscovery sibling, so completeness is moderate.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage trivially satisfied, so the description carries no burden to document parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate.
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 identifies a specific resource (the ADT discovery document) and notes it's used for connection verification. However, the phrasing 'what healthcheck calls to prove the connection is alive' muddles whether this is a tool for the agent to use directly or an internal mechanism, and it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling adtDiscovery.
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?
The description implies the tool is used for proving a connection is alive, giving some context for when to call it. But it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as adtDiscovery or the healthcheck sibling, so the agent is left to infer the intended invocation scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.