mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

getTransportConfiguration

Read-only

Fetch a transport configuration by URI to view all its defined properties and settings, enabling analysis of transport details in ABAP development.

Instructions

One transport configuration by URI, with everything it defines.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "getTransportConfiguration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The URL of the transport configuration.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by promising 'everything it defines' as the result scope, but it does not explain what a transport configuration defines, how missing/invalid URIs are handled, or any access requirements.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core idea (single configuration by URI) and spends no words on unnecessary details.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool this is nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description's 'everything it defines' is vague about what actually comes back, which leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the url parameter is already documented as 'The URL of the transport configuration.' The description reinforces that the URL identifies a single configuration, but it adds no format, origin, or validation details beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource clearly: a single transport configuration identified by URI, and distinguishes it from list-style siblings like transportConfigurations. The main weakness is that it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'returns', relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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 phrase 'One transport configuration by URI' implies the tool is for retrieving a single configuration rather than listing or modifying them, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings such as transportConfigurations, hasTransportConfig, or setTransportsConfig. Usage context is present but only by implication.

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

Deploy Server