Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
abap-adt-mcp

abap-adt-mcp

by abap0917
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

adt_browse_package

Browse an ABAP package to list its child objects with type and name for each component.

Instructions

List the objects contained in an ABAP package (DEVCLASS), e.g. ZMY_PKG. Returns object type, name and URI for each child.

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": {
      "package": "<package>"
    },
    "name": "adt_browse_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYesPackage/DEVCLASS name, e.g. ZMY_PKG

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions what is returned but does not specify read-only nature, error conditions, or side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentence immediately stating the purpose, followed by a brief note on return values. No redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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 covers the main purpose and returns. It could mention read-only nature or whether subpackages are included, but it is largely complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a simple example (e.g., ZMY_PKG) which does not significantly enhance the schema description.

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 (list), resource (objects in an ABAP package), and return values (object type, name, URI). It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like adt_create_package.

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?

The description implies usage (list objects in a package) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like adt_get_object_structure or adt_search_objects. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools