Exports an ABAP program from SAP to a .prog.abap file in the tmp folder, automatically converting the program name to the Z-namespace.
Export an ABAP program from the system directly to a file in the tmp folder with .prog.abap extension. Automatically converts program name to Z-namespace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_name | Yes | Name of the ABAP program 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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the exact destination folder and file extension plus an unexpected behavior (automatic Z-namespace conversion), which is real added value. However, it omits whether existing files are overwritten, permission requirements, and what the call returns (e.g., the resulting path).
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 disclosed first, followed by the transformation behavior. No filler, though the second sentence could have absorbed a returned-path detail at little cost.
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 simple one-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the file target and extension but leaves the agent guessing about the resulting file path, overwrite behavior, and error conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 program_name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The mention of automatic Z-namespace conversion loosely informs how the name value is interpreted, but it does not clarify format or case expectations 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), resource (ABAP program), and output target (file in tmp folder with .prog.abap extension). This clearly distinguishes it from GetProgram (which returns content rather than writing a file) and from the other Export*ToFile siblings by resource type. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description never says when to choose this over GetProgram or the other Export*ToFile tools; that it writes to a file is stated as capability, not as a selection condition. The 'use this when you want a file on disk' implication is left entirely to inference. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.