ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

debuggerListeners

Retrieve a list of debugger listeners to monitor and manage debugging sessions in ABAP systems, enabling real-time code analysis and issue resolution.

Instructions

Retrieves a list of debugger listeners.

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": "debuggerListeners"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`debuggingMode`	Yes	The debugging mode.
`terminalId`	Yes	The terminal ID.
`ideId`	Yes	The IDE ID.
`user`	Yes	The user.
`checkConflict`	No	Whether to check for conflicts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only implies a read operation ('Retrieves') but does not state whether it has side effects, requires a session, or what the return value looks like. Since there is no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and to the point. It is not verbose, but it lacks additional context that would make it more valuable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the list contains, how parameters influence the result, or what the tool returns, making it hard for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but all parameters have descriptions. This is adequate, though the parameter descriptions are terse.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a list of debugger listeners'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'debuggerListen', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many debugger-related sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusionary conditions.

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

Deploy Server