ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

pushRepo

Commit and upload code modifications to a Git repository for version control and collaboration in ABAP development workflows.

Instructions

Pushes changes to a Git repository.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "staging": "<staging>"
    },
    "name": "pushRepo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	The Git repository object.
`staging`	Yes	The staging information object.
`user`	No	The username.
`password`	No	The password.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'pushes changes' without detailing side effects, authentication requirements, reversibility, or return values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is terse, it is appropriately concise and conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention how the staging and repo objects interact, what happens after a successful push, or how errors are surfaced. This is a significant gap for a tool with nested object parameters.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents the role of each field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('pushes') and resource ('changes to a Git repository'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitPullRepo or stageRepo. It avoids tautology and immediately conveys the tool's primary function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use pushRepo versus alternative tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing the appropriate scenario.

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

Deploy Server