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

mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

by Hollway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

prettyPrinter

Read-only

Reformat ABAP source code using your ADT pretty printer settings, returning the formatted text without writing to files.

Instructions

Reformat a source the way the ADT pretty printer would, following the setting of this user. It answers with the formatted text and writes nothing - the write is yours to make. It does not fix indentation of continuation lines the way a person would: aligning parameters to a column is not something it does.

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "prettyPrinter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesThe ABAP source code to format.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the no-write behavior and a concrete limitation: continuation-line indentation/parameter alignment is not fixed. It also notes dependency on the user's stored setting, which is useful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, side-effect behavior, and a key limitation. The most essential information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only formatting tool with no output schema, this is complete: it states what it returns (formatted text), that it does not write, and its main behavioral caveat. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the single source parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds behavioral context but no additional parameter-level detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Reformat a source'), the resource it operates on, and the formatting behavior ('the way the ADT pretty printer would'). It also distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings by stating it 'writes nothing' and from settings tools by referencing the user's existing setting.

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 gives clear context: use this to obtain formatted text without persisting changes, since 'the write is yours to make.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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