ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Applies fix edits' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive behavior.

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 extremely concise with just two words, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication. While front-loaded, it lacks substance, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information.

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?

Given the tool has 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no insight into the tool's function, usage, or behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('proposal' or 'source') is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they interact, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Applies fix edits' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fixEdits' without providing meaningful clarification. It mentions a verb ('applies') and resource ('fix edits'), but 'fix edits' is vague and doesn't specify what is being fixed or edited, leaving the purpose unclear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include 'fixProposals' and various syntax/rename/extract tools, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or differentiation from related operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.