ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

codeCompletionElement

Retrieve code completion suggestions for ABAP development by analyzing source code at specific positions to accelerate programming tasks.

Instructions

Retrieves code completion element information.

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": "codeCompletionElement"
  }
}

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

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'retrieves' but gives no details about side effects, required authentication, parameter validation, or return behavior. This minimal information barely covers the agent's needs.

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 sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It provides almost no actionable information, so the brevity is a liability, not a strength.

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 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description fails to explain the tool's purpose relative to siblings, parameter semantics, or behavioral context, making it completely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage on two string and two numeric parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column), but the description adds nothing about their meaning or how they relate to the retrieval. With no parameter info, the agent cannot construct correct arguments.

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 clear verb 'retrieves' with a resource 'code completion element information', so it states what the tool does. However, it doesn't specify what an 'element' means or how this tool differs from siblings like codeCompletion or codeCompletionFull.

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 compared to any alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for when this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server