sap-abap-mcp

sap_navigate

Navigate to any SAP transaction code (e.g., SE11, SE16, SM30) and retrieve the HTML page text of the resulting screen, enabling direct access to transaction-based data without manual GUI steps.

Instructions

Navigate to an SAP transaction code (e.g. SE11, SE16, SM30, SU01). Returns the HTML page text of the resulting screen.

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": {
      "transaction": "<transaction>"
    },
    "name": "sap_navigate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transaction`	Yes	SAP transaction code, e.g. 'SE16', 'SM30', 'SU01'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions returning HTML page text but does not describe side effects like session state changes, need for authentication, or error handling. For a navigation action, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with 'Navigate'. No wasted words. Could add a bit more context without hurting conciseness, but it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks mention of prerequisites (like being logged in) or session implications, which are relevant given sibling tools like sap_login. Moderate completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the 'transaction' parameter described clearly with examples. Description reiterates examples but does not add new semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema covers it fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states tool navigates to an SAP transaction code and returns HTML page text. It distinguishes from siblings like sap_login (authentication) and sap_get_page (getting a page) but could be more explicit about how it differs from sap_execute_command.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage: navigate to a transaction code to access a screen. No explicit guidance on when to use it vs. sap_execute_command or sap_get_page, nor prerequisites like requiring sap_login first. Adequate but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server