ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a destructive action ('stops') but doesn't clarify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it terminates debugging sessions), error conditions, or what happens post-execution. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse, lacking necessary context for effective use, which slightly reduces its utility despite the clean structure.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stops' entails operationally, potential impacts, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity implied by four required parameters, more detail is needed to guide proper invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters (debuggingMode, terminalId, ideId, user), such as their roles in identifying the listener to stop. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation.

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 'Stops a debug listener' clearly states the action (stops) and target (debug listener), avoiding tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'debug listener' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerListeners' or 'debuggerListen'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have an active listener), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'debuggerListen' (which likely starts a listener) or 'debuggerListeners' (which might list them).

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