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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

lock

Lock ABAP objects to prevent concurrent modifications during development. Specify the object URL and optional access mode to secure resources in ABAP systems.

Instructions

Lock an object

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": {
      "objectUrl": "<objectUrl>"
    },
    "name": "lock"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectUrlYesURL of the object to lock
accessModeNoAccess mode for the lock

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lock an object' provides no information about the effects of locking, permission requirements, reversibility, or how it interacts with other operations such as 'unLock', leaving the agent without critical context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of only three words. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it is more of a fragment than a complete description and lacks structural context that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage.

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?

Although the schema fully describes the parameters, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain the lock semantics, prerequisites, or consequences. This leaves the agent under-informed for a tool that likely acts as a mutating 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 covers 100% of the parameters (objectUrl and accessMode) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Lock' and identifies a resource ('object'), clearly conveying the core action. It is distinguished from the sibling 'unLock' tool, but the term 'object' is generic and lacks specificity about the type of object being locked.

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, when not to use it, or which alternatives might be relevant. The description simply states the action without any contextual direction.

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