mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

debuggerAttach

Attach to a paused ABAP process at a breakpoint to inspect its stack and variables, then release it to avoid freezing the work process.

Instructions

Attach to the process that has stopped at a breakpoint, which is what debuggerListen reported. Only after this do the stack and the variables mean anything; the attachment holds the stopped process, so let it go (debuggerStep with terminate, or delete the listener) rather than leaving a work process frozen.

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": {
      "debuggingMode": "<debuggingMode>",
      "debuggeeId": "<debuggeeId>",
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "debuggerAttach"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user`	Yes	The user.
`debuggeeId`	Yes	The ID of the debuggee.
`debuggingMode`	Yes	The debugging mode.
`dynproDebugging`	No	Whether to enable Dynpro debugging.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that attachment holds the process and that abandoning it can leave a work process frozen. It gives concrete cleanup paths (debuggerStep terminate or listener deletion).

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?

Two compact sentences, direct start with the action and immediate caveat. No filler; the cleanup warning is necessary context.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description supplies the missing lifecycle context: attach after listen, read state after attach, and release via step/terminate or listener delete. Enough for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. Description doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description names a specific verb, attach, and resource, the process stopped at a breakpoint reported by debuggerListen. It distinguishes itself from sibling debugger tools by explicitly referencing the listener and later stack/variable reads.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It tells exactly when to use: after debuggerListen, before stack/variables are meaningful. It also says when serving as cleanup alternative: use debuggerStep with terminate or delete the listener.

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

Deploy Server