ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

renameEvaluate

Assess the impact of renaming ABAP objects by analyzing references and dependencies before executing the change.

Instructions

Evaluates a rename refactoring.

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": {
      "uri": "<uri>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "startColumn": "<startColumn>",
      "endColumn": "<endColumn>"
    },
    "name": "renameEvaluate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uri`	Yes	The URI of the object to rename.
`line`	Yes	The line number.
`startColumn`	Yes	The starting column.
`endColumn`	Yes	The ending column.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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 disclosing behavioral traits. 'Evaluates a rename refactoring' reveals no side effects, required permissions, or what the evaluation entails, providing almost no transparency.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence and is concise, but it is severely under-specified. It reads more as a placeholder than as useful guidance, so the brevity is not effective.

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?

With 4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and closely related sibling tools, the description is contextually incomplete. It does not explain what the evaluation returns, how the parameters map to a rename operation, or how this step fits into the larger rename workflow.

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 has 100% description coverage with each parameter clearly labeled, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Evaluates' with the resource 'a rename refactoring', making the basic intent clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tools renamePreview and renameExecute, which are closely related.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use renameEvaluate versus alternatives like renamePreview or renameExecute. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server