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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

prettyPrinter

Format ABAP source code to improve readability and maintain consistent style using the ABAP Development Tools API.

Instructions

Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer.

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "prettyPrinter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesThe ABAP source code to format.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 states the formatting action but does not mention the return value, whether the input is modified in place, or error handling, leaving the agent uncertain about what it receives back after invocation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant details. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, so the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of an output schema and absence of return-value information means the agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior, leaving a notable gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 single 'source' parameter is fully documented in the schema with 'The ABAP source code to format.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer,' providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like prettyPrinterSetting, but the action is unambiguous and easy to distinguish from unrelated tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: this tool is used when ABAP source code needs formatting. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools (e.g., prettyPrinterSetting) or any exclusions, so it barely meets the implied-usage level.

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