ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

codeCompletion

Generate ABAP code completion suggestions by analyzing source code at specific positions to accelerate development and reduce errors.

Instructions

Get code completion suggestions

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": {
      "sourceUrl": "<sourceUrl>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "column": "<column>"
    },
    "name": "codeCompletion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sourceUrl`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`line`	Yes
`column`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details. It does not explain how the sourceUrl, source, line, or column parameters affect the completion suggestions, nor does it mention session requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It provides no additional structure or detail to earn its place beyond the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what the completion suggestions look like, how the parameters interact, or how this tool relates to its siblings. The description is inadequate for a tool with four required parameters and no other documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has four required parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column) with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of any of these parameters, leaving the agent with no information about how to populate them correctly.

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 tool returns code completion suggestions, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('code completion suggestions'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like codeCompletionFull or codeCompletionElement, which appear to be related variants.

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 such as codeCompletionFull or codeCompletionElement. The description offers no context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server