ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

atcWorklists

Retrieve ATC worklists from ABAP systems to manage code analysis findings and track compliance results for development teams.

Instructions

Retrieves ATC worklists.

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": {
      "runResultId": "<runResultId>"
    },
    "name": "atcWorklists"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runResultId`	Yes	The ID of the ATC run result.
`timestamp`	No	The timestamp.
`usedObjectSet`	No	The used object set.
`includeExempted`	No	Whether to include exempted findings.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies read-only, but it does not explain what a worklist contains, whether it includes all findings or respects filters, or any other behavioral traits.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately concise for a simple retrieval, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks crucial context: what worklists are returned, the structure of the response, and how parameters affect results. This is inadequate for a tool with four parameters.

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 already describes all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions themselves are minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names a precise resource ('ATC worklists'), clearly indicating a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling ATC tools like atcUsers or atcCustomizing, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It neither names alternative tools nor provides context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server