Retrieve ABAP object types to identify available development components in ABAP systems through the ADT API.
Retrieves object types.
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": "objectTypes"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'retrieves' but does not describe side effects, return format, data scope, or any limitations. The agent gains no behavioral insight beyond a generic read action.
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 concise sentence, but it is severely under-specified. It leaves out essential details about what 'object types' means or what the response contains. This is not effective conciseness but rather an unhelpful minimalism that fails to earn its place.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is too vague to understand the tool's purpose or result. For a tool with zero parameters, the description should at least clarify what is retrieved, but it does not.
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 with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter details to explain. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.
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 object types' essentially restates the tool name 'objectTypes' with a generic verb. It gives no specific detail about what kind of object types are returned, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like 'loadTypes' or 'objectStructure'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions. With many sibling tools, the absence of usage guidance makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.