Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

by Hollway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gitRepos

Read-only

Lists abapGit repositories on the SAP system, showing their packages, branches, and current state.

Instructions

The abapGit repositories linked on this system, with their packages, branches and state.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitRepos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

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 read-only nature is covered. The description adds the content detail (packages, branches, state), which is useful context. It does not contradict annotations and provides a bit more than the annotations alone.

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?

A single, concise sentence that fully states the tool's purpose with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main subject and includes the relevant qualifiers.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description adequately conveys what it returns. It does not mention output format, but with no output schema, the description's enumeration of fields is sufficient. The tool is simple enough that no further detail is critical.

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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no gap.

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 states the tool lists abapGit repositories along with their packages, branches, and state. It uses a clear resource ('repositories') and specifies included details, distinguishing it from git operations like create or pull. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many git-related siblings (e.g., gitExternalRepoInfo, gitCreateRepo). The description only says what it lists, not when an agent should choose it over alternatives.

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