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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gitPullRepo

Pull changes from a Git repository into ABAP systems using the ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server to synchronize code updates.

Instructions

Pulls changes from a Git repository.

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": {
      "repoId": "<repoId>"
    },
    "name": "gitPullRepo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoIdYesThe ID of the repository.
branchNoThe branch name.
transportNoThe transport.
userNoThe username.
passwordNoThe password.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Pulls changes' without mentioning authentication, merge behavior, side effects, or required permissions, which is insufficient for a mutating Git operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or unnecessary details. It is appropriately concise, though brevity comes at the cost of informativeness.

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?

Given the 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or the role of optional parameters like user/password/transport, leaving major gaps 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.

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions for all 5 parameters (e.g., username, branch, repoId, password, transport). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies even though parameters like 'transport' remain underspecified.

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 a specific verb ('Pulls') and resource ('Git repository'), clearly identifying the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like pushRepo and stageRepo, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on the scope of the pull.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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