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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

atcRequestExemption

Request an exemption for ABAP Test Cockpit (ATC) findings to manage code analysis results in ABAP systems.

Instructions

Requests an ATC exemption.

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": {
      "proposal": "<proposal>"
    },
    "name": "atcRequestExemption"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposalYesThe ATC exemption proposal.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool requests an exemption, implying a write operation, but omits any details on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or response outcomes.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy or wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it easy to scan. It is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, but the conciseness itself is effective.

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?

The tool has one complex nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to explain what constitutes a valid proposal, what the response contains, or how it fits into the broader ATC exemption workflow. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 covers the only parameter ('proposal') with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies. However, the schema's property description is generic and does not explain the proposal structure, but that is beyond the description's scope.

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 ('Requests') and the resource ('an ATC exemption'). It is a specific verb+resource pair that identifies the tool's purpose, though it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like atcExemptProposal or atcWorklists.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action, without context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or which sibling tools are not appropriate.

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