Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

by Hollway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

annotationDefinitions

Read-only

Retrieve the allowed CDS annotations and value ranges for DDLS sources to prevent activation errors.

Instructions

The CDS annotations this system defines, with their value ranges - what may be written in a DDLS source before an activation refuses it.

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": "annotationDefinitions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that these definitions are what activation refuses against, but it does not disclose return structure, pagination, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and then explains its role in activation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a parameter-free read-only tool, the description communicates what the tool returns (CDS annotations and value ranges) and why it matters. It stops short of describing the exact return format or data structure, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters against an empty schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter details to add, and none are needed.

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 identifies the resource ('CDS annotations this system defines') and conveys the tool's purpose: returning supported annotation value ranges. It is not a tautology and avoids ambiguity, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like syntaxCheckCdsUrl or codeCompletion.

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 clause 'what may be written in a DDLS source before an activation refuses it' implies the tool is relevant when authoring or validating DDLS source, giving a clear context of use. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus an alternative, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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