Export a CDS metadata extension from SAP ABAP directly to a .ddlx.asddlxs file in the tmp folder, automatically converting its name to the Z-namespace.
Export a CDS metadata extension from the system directly to a file in the tmp folder with .ddlx.asddlxs extension. Automatically converts extension name to Z-namespace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extension_name | Yes | Name of the metadata extension to export |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the output lands in the tmp folder, the file gets a .ddlx.asddlxs extension, and the extension name is silently rewritten into the Z-namespace. It omits whether an existing file is overwritten, what filename results, and any authorization or error behavior.
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, front-loaded with the action and output location; nothing is padding. Slightly under-optimized in that the namespace-conversion clause is appended rather than framed as a behavioral warning.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is exported, where it is written, and the name transformation. The main gap is that it never gives the concrete resulting path or filename pattern an agent would need to locate the exported file afterward.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single extension_name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a tangential note that the name is converted to Z-namespace, which is behavior rather than parameter semantics, and adds no format or valid-value guidance beyond the schema.
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) plus resource (CDS metadata extension) and the destination (a file in the tmp folder with .ddlx.asddlxs extension), so an agent can distinguish this from the GetMetadataExtension reader sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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 only implied: the description makes clear you call this when you want the metadata extension landed on disk rather than returned, and the '.'ddlx.asddlxs'' detail reinforces that. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over GetMetadataExtension, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.