ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

createAtcRun

Create an ABAP Test Cockpit (ATC) run to perform code analysis and quality checks on ABAP systems using specified check variants and parameters.

Instructions

Creates an ATC run.

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": {
      "variant": "<variant>",
      "mainUrl": "<mainUrl>"
    },
    "name": "createAtcRun"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`variant`	Yes	The name of the ATC check variant.
`mainUrl`	Yes	The main URL for the ATC run.
`maxResults`	No	The maximum number of results to retrieve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Creates' indicates a mutation, but it doesn't describe side effects, required permissions, whether the run is immediately executed, or the outcome. No behavioral context is provided, making this inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose, context, and behavior. The structure provides no front-loaded critical details.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a three-word description. It doesn't explain what an ATC run is, what creation entails, or how it relates to sibling tools. The definition is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity and context.

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 100% coverage, with each of the three parameters having a description. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the schema sufficiently documents the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Creates an ATC run' essentially restates the tool name with a generic verb. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling ATC tools like atcCheckVariant or atcWorklists, and the term 'ATC run' remains unexplained. This is close to a tautology, providing minimal purpose clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. It simply states an action without any usage context.

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

Deploy Server