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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Listens for debugging events', which does not reveal whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, how events are delivered (e.g., streaming, polling), or any side effects like resource consumption. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Listens for debugging events.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it lacks detail, it is structurally efficient without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a tool with 6 parameters (4 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'listening' entails operationally, what events are captured, how results are returned, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and behavior.

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 all parameters documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'debuggingMode', 'terminalId', 'ideId', 'user', 'checkConflict', 'isNotifiedOnConflict'). The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Listens for debugging events' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerListen' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'listens' and resource 'debugging events', but fails to distinguish this tool from sibling debugging tools like 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerListeners', or 'debuggerSetBreakpoints', leaving the exact purpose unclear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with multiple sibling debugging tools available (e.g., 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerListeners'), the lack of usage guidelines makes it difficult for an AI agent to determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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