Creates ABAP objects (except reports) by specifying object type, name, parent, and description. Handles transport assignment and responsible person.
Create a new ABAP object. Report includes (PROG/I) are the one type this cannot create - it refuses them and points at createInclude.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| objtype | Yes | ||
| transport | No | ||
| parentName | Yes | ||
| parentPath | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| responsible | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries more weight. It reveals an important behavior: it refuses report include objects and points to createInclude, which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authorization requirements, error handling, or side effects, so it only moderately covers behavioral transparency.
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?
Two sentences, no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and the key exclusion is communicated clearly with a direct pointer to the alternative tool. Every sentence contributes value.
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?
The tool is complex with 7 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, yet the description only notes the include exception. It does not explain what ABAP object types are supported by applicable parameter values, parent/name semantics, or typical object creation workflow. This is seriously under-specified for an action with so many input fields and a broad domain.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for any of the 7 parameters, and the description itself also gives no meaning for objtype, parentName, transport, parentPath, description, or responsible. The agent has nothing to infer the required format, constraints, or relationships between parameters.
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 clearly states a specific action 'Create a new ABAP object' and explicitly calls out the one type it cannot create, thereby distinguishing itself from sibling tools like createInclude. This is a clear verb+resource statement with practical evidence of differentiation.
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?
It provides an explicit when-not and an alternative: report includes (PROG/I) are refused, and createInclude is pointed to. However, it doesn't give any broader guidance about when to prefer this tool over other create siblings such as createDomain or createStructure, so it's not fully complete guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.