Retrieve the type, package, owner, and version of an SAP ABAP development object by providing its object name for quick metadata lookup.
Reads type, package, owner and version of an object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | Object name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is a 'read,' implying non-destructive, but offers no information on permissions, error handling, or response format. This is acceptable for a simple read but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and key fields, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists the returned fields, allowing an agent to anticipate the output. It omits details like error conditions or prerequisites, but these are minor for a metadata read.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (object_name) with a basic description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('reads') and resource ('metadata') and enumerates the exact fields returned (type, package, owner, version). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like sap_read_source (which reads source code) and sap_search_objects (which searches).
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the alternative read tools (sap_read_source, sap_search_objects). An agent must infer that this is for metadata only, with no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.