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. While 'formats' implies a non-destructive operation, it does not specify whether the tool requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output looks like (e.g., formatted code or a success message). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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: 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This makes it easy to grasp quickly without wasting space.

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?

The tool has a simple input schema with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output expectations. Given the low complexity and absence of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but could be more informative to fully guide an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'source' parameter clearly documented as 'The ABAP source code to format.' The description adds no additional semantic details beyond this, such as formatting rules or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer.' It specifies the action (formats) and the resource (ABAP code), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'setObjectSource', which might also involve code manipulation, so it misses the highest score.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing valid ABAP code, or compare it to siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation or 'setObjectSource' for updating code. Without this context, users might struggle to choose the right tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.