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

mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

by Hollway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ddicRepositoryAccess

Read-only

Retrieve ABAP Dictionary metadata for types, fields, and domains directly from the DDIC repository, providing the same view as the dictionary itself.

Instructions

Read dictionary metadata through the DDIC repository access endpoint - types, fields and domains as the dictionary itself sees them.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ddicRepositoryAccess"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe path to the DDIC element.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds a small behavioral nuance by saying the metadata is exposed 'as the dictionary itself sees them,' but it does not disclose response shape, path semantics, or any special behavior beyond that.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a clarifying qualifier about the dictionary's own perspective.

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 one-parameter read tool with read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves the expected path format and the distinction from sibling DDIC tools unstated. The lack of an output schema makes the vague return scope slightly more noticeable.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: the single 'path' parameter is described as 'The path to the DDIC element.' The description adds only a slight clarification that the element is dictionary metadata, so it does not meaningfully go 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('dictionary metadata' via the DDIC repository access endpoint), and names the relevant content: types, fields, and domains. It is clear on its face, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ddicElement or getDomainProperties.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many related DDIC read tools in the sibling list. The description implies a read-only metadata use case but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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