ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

codeCompletionFull

Complete ABAP code automatically by analyzing context, providing suggestions for methods, variables, and syntax to accelerate development.

Instructions

Performs full code completion.

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>",
      "patternKey": "<patternKey>"
    },
    "name": "codeCompletionFull"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool name ('full code completion') without describing inputs, outputs, or side effects. This is essentially a tautology.

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 word count but under-specifies the tool's purpose and usage. It does not earn its place by adding meaningful detail beyond the 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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanations. The description provides no context about the tool's operation, making it impossible for an agent to use it correctly without external knowledge.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 5 parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column, patternKey). The agent gets no semantic help for how to fill these fields.

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 performs code completion, and the name includes 'Full' to differentiate it from sibling tools like codeCompletion. However, it doesn't specify what 'full' entails, so the differentiation is weak.

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 its siblings (e.g., codeCompletion, codeCompletionElement). No context or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server