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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

extractMethodEvaluate

Evaluate code refactoring by extracting methods from ABAP objects to improve maintainability and reduce duplication.

Instructions

Evaluates an extract method refactoring.

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": {
      "uri": "<uri>",
      "range": "<range>"
    },
    "name": "extractMethodEvaluate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYesThe URI of the object.
rangeYesThe range to extract.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Evaluates', which hints at a non-mutating operation, but it does not specify whether this is a dry-run, what data it returns, or any side effects or permissions required. This is insufficient transparency for a refactoring-related tool.

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 sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description is too terse to provide complete contextual understanding, especially regarding what 'evaluate' produces and how it fits with the extract method workflow. More context about the evaluation result and relationship to siblings would improve completeness.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema with clear, concise definitions. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Evaluates') on a specific resource ('an extract method refactoring'). It clearly indicates the tool's function, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like extractMethodPreview or extractMethodExecute.

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 alternatives such as extractMethodPreview or extractMethodExecute. The description lacks any contextual or conditional usage information.

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