ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('Get code completion suggestions') without describing how it behaves: whether it's read-only or mutating, what permissions are needed, whether it has rate limits, what the response format looks like, or any side effects. This leaves critical operational context unspecified.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted verbiage. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get code completion suggestions'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the basic intent without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a code completion tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves parsing code and generating suggestions, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for effective use.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 required parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'sourceUrl' and 'source' are alternatives or both required, or what 'line' and 'column' represent in the context of code completion.

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

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

The description 'Get code completion suggestions' restates the tool name 'codeCompletion' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what kind of code, for which language/environment, or what format the suggestions come in. Compared to sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' and 'codeCompletionFull', it fails to differentiate its specific scope or functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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. With sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' and 'codeCompletionFull' available, the description offers no context about differences in scope, granularity, or use cases. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for invoking this tool.

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