mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

syntaxCheckCdsUrl

Read-only

Validate CDS object syntax by providing its DDL source URL. Get error details back.

Instructions

Syntax check for a CDS object, which is addressed differently from ABAP: the DDL source URL goes in as the main URL. For ordinary ABAP use syntaxCheckCode.

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": {
      "cdsUrl": "<cdsUrl>"
    },
    "name": "syntaxCheckCdsUrl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cdsUrl`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the note about the DDL source URL being the main URL, which is more of a parameter usage detail than a behavioral trait. No additional side effects or behavioral nuances are disclosed beyond what annotations provide, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is mentioned concisely at the end. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the key distinction from ABAP and directs to the right sibling. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but for a syntax check that is typically implied. Overall sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter 'cdsUrl'. The description compensates by explaining that the DDL source URL goes in as the main URL, giving meaning and usage context that the schema lacks. This is helpful, though it does not specify the exact URL format or encoding requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Clearly states the tool performs a syntax check for a CDS object, with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from the ABAP variant by noting the different URL addressing and explicitly pointing to syntaxCheckCode as the alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to use syntaxCheckCode for ordinary ABAP, providing a clear when-not scenario and an alternative tool. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over its siblings.

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

Deploy Server