ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

fixProposals

Retrieves code fix proposals for ABAP development issues by analyzing source code at specific locations to suggest corrections.

Instructions

Retrieves fix proposals.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "column": "<column>"
    },
    "name": "fixProposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`line`	Yes
`column`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral characteristics, but it only states that the tool 'Retrieves fix proposals' without noting return payload, pagination, permissions, or side effects. It also does not clarify whether this is a safe read operation or what the response structure is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is minimal but severely under-specified. A single vague sentence is not conciseness when the tool has 4 required parameters and no other documentation; it is under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters. The one-sentence description gives no indication of input format, return value, or relationship to ATC concepts. This is wholly insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of how url, source, line, and column are used or formatted. The agent must guess the meaning of these parameters, which are not self-explanatory in context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Retrieves fix proposals' essentially restates the tool name 'fixProposals' without adding any information about what constitutes a fix proposal or how it differs from sibling tools like fixEdits or atcExemptProposal. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server