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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

extractMethodPreview

Preview extract method refactoring in ABAP code to assess changes before applying them, using the ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server.

Instructions

Previews 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": {
      "proposal": "<proposal>"
    },
    "name": "extractMethodPreview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposalYesThe extract method proposal.

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'previews' a refactoring, but it does not explicitly state that this is a non-mutating, read-only operation, nor does it describe what the preview includes or any permissions required.

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, grammatically complete sentence with no fluff. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and target, though it might be slightly under-specified in content.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the preview returns or how the agent should interpret the result. It also does not mention any side effects or preconditions, leaving the tool functionally opaque for a one-parameter, no-annotation operation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'proposal' parameter with the description 'The extract method proposal.' The tool description adds no further semantic meaning about the proposal format or how it is used in the preview, so this dimension is adequately served by the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Previews' and names the resource 'extract method refactoring,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like extractMethodExecute and extractMethodEvaluate. However, it does not elaborate on what the preview entails, so it is not as complete as it could be.

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 the sibling tools extractMethodExecute or extractMethodEvaluate. No prerequisites, alternatives, or context are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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