ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

checkRepo

Validate Git repository connectivity and configuration for ABAP systems using the ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server. This tool performs repository checks to ensure proper integration with ABAP development environments.

Instructions

Checks a Git repository.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "checkRepo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	The Git repository.
`user`	No	The username.
`password`	No	The password.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Checks a Git repository' reveals nothing about side effects, return values, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The agent has zero insight into what happens when the tool runs.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence provides no substantive information, making it equivalently unhelpful to a one-word placeholder.

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?

This tool has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague one-line description. Given the complexity of the surrounding tool ecosystem (many git-related operations), the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, inputs, or behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. However, the parameter descriptions are also minimal ('The Git repository', 'The username', 'The password') and the tool description adds no additional meaning. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameters, but value-add from the description is absent.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Checks a Git repository' restates the tool name without specifying what 'check' involves or what resource is examined. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like gitRepos, gitPullRepo, or gitUnlinkRepo, so the agent cannot understand the tool's specific function.

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 the many related git tools. No context, prerequisites, or alternative options are mentioned, leaving the agent without any direction for selection.

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

Deploy Server