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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

extractMethodExecute

Execute extract method refactoring in ABAP code to improve structure and maintainability by isolating reusable logic into separate methods.

Instructions

Executes 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": {
      "refactoring": "<refactoring>"
    },
    "name": "extractMethodExecute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refactoringYesThe refactoring object.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'executes', which implies a modification but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, source changes, or error conditions. For a refactoring tool likely to modify code, this is critically minimal.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and without redundancy. It earns its place but is exceedingly sparse, bordering on under-specification, which prevents a 5.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should provide more context. It doesn't explain the effect of execution, the relationship to evaluate/preview siblings, or what the 'refactoring' string should contain, making it incomplete for an action tool.

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 input schema covers the single 'refactoring' parameter with a description ('The refactoring object.'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary baseline, so a score 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 states the action verb 'Executes' and the resource 'extract method refactoring', making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like extractMethodPreview or extractMethodEvaluate, so it's not fully distinguished.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the final step after preview, any prerequisites, or workflow context. The sibling names suggest a sequence, but the description doesn't link to them.

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