abap-adt-mcp

語法檢查

syntax_check

Checks ABAP syntax of source code to verify correctness before writing, without locking or modifying the system.

Instructions

對指定的原始碼內容執行 ABAP 語法檢查(不需要鎖定、不會修改系統)。可用來在寫入前先驗證修改後的程式碼。

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": {
      "object_url": "<object_url>"
    },
    "name": "syntax_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No	要檢查的原始碼內容;省略時檢查系統上目前的版本
`object_url`	Yes	物件 URI,例如 /sap/bc/adt/oo/classes/zcl_demo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and explicitly states 'no lock needed, does not modify system', clearly communicating behavioral traits (read-only, safe operation). No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence (30 characters) that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is essential, with no redundant information.

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?

While the description covers purpose and behavior, it lacks details about the output (e.g., syntax errors or warnings) and does not explain what happens when errors are found. Given no output schema, this is a gap.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'perform syntax check' on the resource 'specified source code' and distinguishes from write tools by noting it does not modify the system. It also gives a concrete use case: verifying modified code before writing.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says it can be used to verify code before writing, providing clear context. However, it does not discuss when not to use it or compare directly with sibling tools like read_source or write_source, which would strengthen guidance.

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

Deploy Server