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

mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

by Hollway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mainPrograms

Read-only

Identifies the main programs that use a given include, enabling syntax checks and creation when the owning program is unknown.

Instructions

Which programs an include belongs to - the question a report include cannot answer about itself. It is needed to create or syntax-check an include, both of which want the main program, and an include used by several reports answers with all of them.

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": {
      "includeUrl": "<includeUrl>"
    },
    "name": "mainPrograms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeUrlYesThe URL of the include.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false级的 safe read. The description adds useful behavior: it returns all main programs when an include is used by several reports. However, it does not discuss response format, missing input behavior, or other side effects beyond that.

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 compact but somewhat cryptic, especially the phrasing 'the question a report include cannot answer about itself.' It could be more direct and front-loaded without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does and when to use it. The only minor gap is no mention of the response shape, but that is not essential given the simplicity.

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%, and the only parameter includeUrl is well documented in the schema itself. The description does not add further meaning or constraints to the parameter.

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 conveys that the tool returns the main programs an include belongs to. It distinguishes the tool from the include's own self-reporting limitation, though it does not name or contrast sibling tools explicitly.

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?

It explicitly states this is needed when creating or syntax-checking an include because both operations require the main program. This gives a concrete usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name 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