Skip to main content
Glama
Hollway

mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

by Hollway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getFunctionModule

Read-only

Fetch an ABAP function module's package, group, and full signature from just its name: parameters, defaults, exceptions, and pass-by-value flags. Optionally retrieve its source body.

Instructions

A function module by name alone: which group it lives in, its package, and its signature as data - importing, exporting, changing, tables and exceptions, with types, defaults and which parameters are passed by value. The name is all that is needed; the group is looked up. Without this, reading a module meant knowing its group to build the URL and then reading the interface out of the ABAP by eye, because ADT serves the signature as the first statement of the source (not as the *"-block SE37 shows). Pass includeSource for the body as well - it is often a thousand lines, so it is off by default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFunction module name, e.g. Z_APP_GET_INVOICE.
versionNoWhich version to read: "active" (what runs) or "inactive" (the working copy, the ADT default).
maxLinesNoWith includeSource: how many lines of the body to return.
startLineNoWith includeSource: first line of the body to return.
functionGroupNoThe group, if you know it. Saves the lookup; required only when the search cannot find the module.
includeSourceNoAlso return the body. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it performs a group lookup, returns the signature as structured data, and that includeSource defaults to off due to large bodies. It also explains the ADT behavior that motivated the tool, adding valuable context without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat verbose and includes historical context about the previous manual approach. While the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the subsequent sentences add background that could be trimmed for a more concise, focused definition.

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?

Given the 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: the group lookup, the returned signature data, and the optional body inclusion with defaults. It lacks explicit error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand how to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that functionGroup saves the lookup and that includeSource is off by default because bodies are often a thousand lines, going beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 states the tool fetches a function module's metadata (group, package, signature components) using only the name. It distinguishes itself from the old workflow of needing to know the group, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 description implies when to use it ('The name is all that is needed') and contrasts it with the manual process of knowing the group to build the URL. However, it never explicitly states alternatives like getObjectSource or callFunction, nor does it say when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit.

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