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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('creates') without any details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what the creation entails (e.g., whether it triggers a process, returns an ID, or has dependencies). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it uses only three words, it fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than succinct. It lacks front-loaded details and does not earn its place with meaningful content.

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 tool's complexity as a creation operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an ATC run is, the outcome of creation, or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter documentation (variant, mainUrl, maxResults). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's completeness justifies the baseline score of 3, as it adequately defines parameters without redundancy.

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 'Creates an ATC run' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('ATC run'), but lacks detail on what an ATC run entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcCustomizing', leaving the purpose vague and undifferentiated.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference any of the many sibling tools (e.g., 'atcCheckVariant', 'atcCustomizing'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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