Retrieve ABAP short dumps from ST22 newest first, showing runtime error, exception, and program that failed. Filter with an optional query.
Short dumps from ST22, newest first, as the HTML page ST22 itself shows. The header of one carries the runtime error, the exception and the program that died.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | An optional query string to filter the dumps. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail not present in annotations: newest-first ordering, HTML-page presentation, and the header containing the runtime error, exception, and program. It does not mention pagination or filtering behavior, but that is minor for a read-only listing.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the resource and ordering, and the second explains what the returned output contains. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns and how the results are ordered. It could be more explicit about the query filter and any output limits, but these are not necessary for basic invocation.
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 input schema already covers the only parameter (an optional query string to filter dumps) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics about how the query filter behaves, such as whether it is substring, exact, or field-scoped.
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?
States the resource clearly (short dumps from ST22), the ordering (newest first), and what each dump's header contains. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', but the intent is unambiguous and the resource is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools.
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 should be used when ST22 short dumps are needed, and the ordering and content details give clear context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.