mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

gitExternalRepoInfo

Read-only

Check external Git repository accessibility with credentials and list available branches to validate connectivity before linking.

Instructions

Whether an external git repository can be reached with these credentials, and which branches it offers - the check before linking it.

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": {
      "repourl": "<repourl>"
    },
    "name": "gitExternalRepoInfo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user`	No	The username.
`repourl`	Yes	The URL of the repository.
`password`	No	The password.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds useful context that credentials are validated against the repository and branch availability is returned, but it does not go deeper into error behavior, anonymous access, or output shape.

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 efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the workflow context. Every part earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only check tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential result concepts: reachability and branch listing. It could be more explicit about return format or error behavior, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and likely output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents user, repourl, and password. The description's 'with these credentials' loosely ties to user/password, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's role as a reachability/branch-listing check for an external git repository, using a specific verb-like framing ('Whether ... can be reached ... and which branches it offers'). It also distinguishes itself from related git operations by calling itself 'the check before linking it'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'the check before linking it' gives explicit context about when this tool should be used: before linking an external repository. It does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended workflow position is clear.

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

Deploy Server