ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

activateByName

Activate ABAP development objects by specifying their name and URL to implement changes in the ABAP system through the ADT API.

Instructions

Activate an ABAP object using name and URL

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": {
      "objectName": "<objectName>",
      "objectUrl": "<objectUrl>"
    },
    "name": "activateByName"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`objectName`	Yes	Name of the object
`objectUrl`	Yes	URL of the object
`mainInclude`	No	Main include context
`preauditRequested`	No	Whether to perform pre-audit checks

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, or consequences of activation. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence and is front-loaded with the action. However, it is arguably too sparse, missing necessary context that could help an agent understand the tool's role. It's efficient but under-specified.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's mutating nature, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain why to use this tool, what activation entails, or how parameters interrelate. An agent would need more context to use it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description's mention of 'name and URL' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action (activate) and the resource (ABAP object), and specifies the input method (by name and URL). It implies a single object compared to sibling 'activateObjects', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't mention activateObjects or any other sibling, nor does it state when not to use it. The singular 'an ABAP object' is the only implicit hint, but there is no explicit usage direction.

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

Deploy Server