abap-adt-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

adt_get_table_data

Read rows from a DDIC table or CDS view with optional WHERE clause and row limit. Values are decoded to human-readable form.

Instructions

Read rows from a DDIC table or CDS view (read-only). Supports an optional WHERE clause and a row limit. Values are decoded to human-readable form.

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": {
      "entity": "<entity>"
    },
    "name": "adt_get_table_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`where`	No	Optional SQL WHERE clause, e.g. SPRSL = 'E' AND ARBGB = '00'
`entity`	Yes	DDIC table or CDS view name, e.g. T100 or ZI_SALES
`maxRows`	No	Row limit (1-1000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only and that values are decoded to human-readable form, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention performance, timeouts, or error handling, but these are less critical for a simple read operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers behavior (read-only, decoding) and options (WHERE, limit). No output schema needed. Could mention that the entity is required, but that is in the schema.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no new semantic information beyond summarizing the where clause and row limit, which are already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Read rows from a DDIC table or CDS view (read-only)', specifying the verb (Read), resource (DDIC table or CDS view), and the read-only nature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle activation, creation, or transport management.

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 implies usage for reading table data without side effects, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives among siblings, though the read-only hint provides context.

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