Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

atcChangeContact

Update the assigned contact for an ATC finding in ABAP systems by specifying the item URI and user ID.

Instructions

Changes the contact for an ATC finding.

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": {
      "itemUri": "<itemUri>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "atcChangeContact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemUriYesThe URI of the item.
userIdYesThe ID of the user.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without any details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core action without unnecessary detail, though this brevity contributes to other dimension deficits.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain what an ATC finding is, what 'contact' means, what the operation does beyond the bare action, or what the agent can expect as a result, making it nearly impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 both parameters with descriptions for userId and itemUri (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description does not explain how the parameters map to the 'contact' action, leaving the agent to infer that userId likely represents the new contact.

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 'Changes the contact for an ATC finding' clearly states the action (changes) and the resource (contact for an ATC finding), which is more specific than the tool name alone. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling ATC tools like atcExemptProposal or atcRequestExemption, and 'contact' is not fully defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making information.

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