Retrieve ABAP data element definitions, including domain references, field labels, and documentation, to understand or reuse SAP fields in ABAP code.
Retrieve ABAP data element definition including domain reference, field labels, and documentation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataelement_name | Yes | Name of the ABAP data element (e.g., MATNR, BUKRS, NETWR) |
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 disclosure burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and names the returned content (domain reference, field labels, documentation), which is genuine added value, but it says nothing about permission/auth requirements, which system the lookup targets, or behavior for an unknown data element name.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and returned fields are all delivered immediately.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient because it enumerates the key returned fields. The remaining gap is that it omits any note on return shape, failure modes, or system context, which siblings like ListSystems/SetDefaultSystem imply is relevant.
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 parameter, including concrete examples (MATNR, BUKRS, NETWR), so the schema does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about naming conventions, case sensitivity, or namespace scoping beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 (Retrieve) and resource (ABAP data element definition) and enumerates the payload (domain reference, field labels, documentation). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent sibling GetDomain, though naming 'domain reference' as content rather than the domain itself hints at the distinction.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus GetDomain, GetTable, or GetStructure, which all sit in the same metadata-retrieval family. Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase 'data element definition'; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.