GetTransaction
Fetch details of an ABAP transaction by specifying its transaction code.
Instructions
Retrieve ABAP transaction details
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_name | Yes | Name of the ABAP transaction |
Fetch details of an ABAP transaction by specifying its transaction code.
Retrieve ABAP transaction details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_name | Yes | Name of the ABAP transaction |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but does not explain authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if the transaction does not exist. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 that front-loads the purpose. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key details without losing conciseness.
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 tool has no output schema and simple input, the description should at least hint at the output structure or what 'details' entails. It does not, leaving ambiguity. For a retrieval tool, the absence of return value information is a notable gap.
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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'transaction_name' having a description 'Name of the ABAP transaction'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Retrieve ABAP transaction details' clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and the resource (ABAP transaction details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetProgram or GetTable by specifying 'transaction'. However, 'details' is vague and could be more specific.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as GetProgram or GetTable. The context is only implicit through the tool name and sibling list. No explicit when/when-not or alternative suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SproitNET/mcp-abap-adt'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server