abap2UI5 MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scope_of

Determine whether UI5 control entities are in scope per OpenUI5 JSDoc: authoritative verdict on existence since UI5 <= 1.71 and non-deprecation.

Instructions

Authoritative in/out-of-scope verdict for UI5 control entities (exists since UI5 <= 1.71, not deprecated), read from the OpenUI5 source JSDoc. Needs an OpenUI5 checkout (OPENUI5_SRC or ../fork-openui5).

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": {
      "entities": "<entities>"
    },
    "name": "scope_of"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entities`	Yes	control entities, e.g. ["sap.m.Wizard", "sap.f.SidePanel"]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data source (OpenUI5 source JSDoc), the version constraint, and the required checkout, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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 two sentences, front-loads the key purpose, and includes essential caveats without any fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 tool with a single simple parameter and no output schema, the description explains the core purpose, source, version constraints, and prerequisite. It does not detail return format or error behavior, but these are reasonably inferable and the description is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 sole parameter 'entities' is fully described in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool provides an 'authoritative in/out-of-scope verdict for UI5 control entities', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also adds clarifying context (exists since UI5 <= 1.71, not deprecated) and distinguishes from siblings by its focus on scope determination.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when needing a scope verdict for UI5 control entities) and states a prerequisite (OpenUI5 checkout). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or list exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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

Deploy Server