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. It states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the URL is invalid), rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., configuration details, format), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with system configurations, more context is needed to ensure proper use by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of the URL or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 'Retrieves a specific transport configuration' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('transport configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'transport configuration' entails (e.g., settings, parameters, metadata) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportConfigurations' (which likely lists multiple) or 'hasTransportConfig' (which might check existence), leaving it somewhat vague.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a URL), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'transportConfigurations' or 'hasTransportConfig', leaving the agent to infer usage based on context alone.

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