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 'Get[s]' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while conveying the essential action and target.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for the agent to reliably use the tool, missing details on parameter meaning, behavioral traits, and output format. For a tool with one parameter and no structured support, more explanatory content is needed.

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 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'objectUrl' undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic information about this parameter, such as what 'objectUrl' represents (e.g., a URL format, specific object identifier), its expected format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, making parameter usage unclear.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('registration information for an ABAP object'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'objectTypes', which might also retrieve object-related information, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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. With many sibling tools that might retrieve object-related data (e.g., 'objectStructure', 'findDefinition'), there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'objectRegistrationInfo', leaving the agent to guess based on 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.