Authenticate with an ABAP system to restore a dead session. Read-only calls recover automatically, but this tool re-establishes the connection when needed.
Authenticate with the ABAP system. Use it to recover a dead session; read-only calls now recover on their own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Authenticate' and 'recover a dead session,' which implies a state-changing operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This contradicts the annotation because recovering a session inherently modifies session state. The description does not add useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, and the contradiction is serious.
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?
The description is two sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is stated first, and the usage nuance is added in the second sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: when to use it (dead session) and when not (read-only calls). However, it does not mention what happens after authentication (e.g., whether a new session is created or what the response looks like), but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, this is a minor gap. The contradiction with annotations slightly undermines completeness but is already accounted for in behavioral transparency.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of the parameters. The description adds no parameter information because there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Authenticate with the ABAP system.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like logout and dropSession by focusing on authentication and session recovery. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 explicitly says to use it to recover a dead session and notes that read-only calls now recover on their own, implying it is only needed for non-read-only scenarios. This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and it clearly separates it from read-only alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.