Terminate the ABAP session to end your connection with the ABAP Development Tools API server, ensuring secure session management.
Terminate ABAP session
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "logout"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Terminate ABAP session' but does not mention side effects (e.g., session invalidation, whether it is destructive, or if re-authentication is required) or return values. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action without extraneous content.
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?
Despite being a simple action, the description lacks essential context about the session lifecycle—whether it terminates the whole user session or just a client connection, what impact it has on authentication, and what the expected response is. With no output schema or annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 'Terminate ABAP session' uses the specific verb 'Terminate' and clearly identifies the resource ('ABAP session'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dropSession' through its direct naming, even though no explicit comparison is made.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'login' or 'dropSession'. The description lacks any contextual direction, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.