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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

debuggerStackTrace

Retrieve the debugger stack trace to analyze program execution flow and identify issues in ABAP systems through the ABAP-ADT-API MCP server.

Instructions

Retrieves the debugger stack trace.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "debuggerStackTrace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
semanticURIsNoWhether to use semantic URIs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't state whether side effects exist, whether a debugger attachment is required, or what the return structure is. This is insufficient given the lack of annotation support.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and fits the tool's simplicity, though it is arguably too sparse to convey full context. However, as conciseness is about eliminating waste, this scores well.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, but the description lacks context about the stack trace's format or any connection to the debugger lifecycle. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what is returned would improve completeness. As it stands, it is minimally viable.

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?

The sole parameter 'semanticURIs' is fully described in the schema as 'Whether to use semantic URIs.' The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('debugger stack trace'), making its function unambiguous. It can be distinguished from siblings like debuggerGoToStack (navigation) and debuggerVariables (variables), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 other debugger tools such as debuggerGoToStack. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites like an active debug session or what makes this tool the preferred choice.

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