Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

debuggerDeleteListener

Stops a debug listener in ABAP systems by specifying debugging mode, terminal, IDE, and user parameters to terminate active debugging sessions.

Instructions

Stops a debug listener.

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": {
      "debuggingMode": "<debuggingMode>",
      "terminalId": "<terminalId>",
      "ideId": "<ideId>",
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "debuggerDeleteListener"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
debuggingModeYesThe debugging mode.
terminalIdYesThe terminal ID.
ideIdYesThe IDE ID.
userYesThe user.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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. It only states the action, omitting any side effects, requirements (e.g., existing listener), or permissions. This is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description 'Stops a debug listener' provides minimal context; it does not explain what a debug listener is, when the tool is applicable, or what the result of the operation is. The description is simply too sparse to be complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (user, ideId, terminalId, debuggingMode) having a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Stops a debug listener' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from related sibling tools like debuggerListen (which implies starting) and debuggerDeleteBreakpoints. It precisely identifies the action and target.

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, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to alternatives. It simply states the function without context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools