ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

classIncludes

Retrieve the include structure of an ABAP class to analyze its components and dependencies within ABAP Development Tools environments.

Instructions

Get class includes structure

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": {
      "clas": "<clas>"
    },
    "name": "classIncludes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`clas`	Yes	The class name

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?

No annotations are provided, placing the burden on the description. It only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the name.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is tightly front-loaded and efficient for a simple getter tool.

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 or annotations, the description should explain what the returned 'includes structure' contains or provide broader context. It merely restates the tool's purpose without elaboration, leaving the agent without sufficient information about expected results.

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 has one parameter 'clas' with the description 'The class name', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get class includes structure' clearly states a specific verb and resource, indicating the tool retrieves the include structure of a class. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like classComponents or objectStructure, though the reference to 'includes' distinguishes it somewhat.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information on selecting it over other structure-related tools.

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

Deploy Server