Retrieve and filter ABAP system dumps to identify and analyze runtime errors in your development environment.
Retrieves a list of dumps.
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": "dumps"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | An optional query string to filter the dumps. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a list is retrieved, implying a read operation, but it does not describe response format, filtering behavior, pagination, or any potential side effects. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence without unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is arguably too under-specified, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
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?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should explain what a list of dumps contains and how the query affects results. It does neither, leaving important context missing. The description is too thin for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 covers the only parameter 'query' at 100% with the description 'An optional query string to filter the dumps.' Therefore, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses the verb 'retrieves' and identifies a resource ('list of dumps'), giving a clear action and object. However, 'dumps' is ambiguous without further context, and it does not distinguish the tool from other retrieval-focused sibling tools (e.g., tracesList, transportInfo).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.