Export an ABAP interface to a .intf.abap file in the tmp folder, converting the interface name to the Z-namespace automatically.
Export an ABAP interface from the system directly to a file in the tmp folder with .intf.abap extension. Automatically converts interface name to Z-namespace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interface_name | Yes | Name of the ABAP interface to export |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose concrete behavior: output location (tmp folder), file extension (.intf.abap), and automatic Z-namespace name conversion. However, it omits whether existing files are overwritten, whether the interface must already exist, and how failures surface.
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?
Two tight sentences with the destination and naming behavior front-loaded and no filler. Sized appropriately for a simple single-parameter tool.
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 one-parameter export with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what gets produced, where, and the naming side effect. Remaining gaps (overwrite behavior, error conditions) are minor for a simple file-export utility.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by disclosing that interface_name is automatically converted to the Z-namespace, a transformation the caller should know about.
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?
States a specific verb (export), resource (ABAP interface), and destination (a file in the tmp folder with .intf.abap extension). This clearly separates it from the other Export*ToFile siblings by resource type and from GetInterface. It stops short of explicitly signaling the relationship to GetInterface, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and destination (export an interface to disk), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like GetInterface or the other Export tools. The agent must infer the selection logic from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.