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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

renameExecute

Execute rename refactoring operations to rename ABAP objects in development systems, enabling code maintenance and updates through the ABAP-ADT-API interface.

Instructions

Executes 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": {
      "refactoring": "<refactoring>"
    },
    "name": "renameExecute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refactoringYesThe rename refactoring.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action 'executes' without disclosing any side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what the result of the refactoring is. 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 extremely concise at one sentence. It states the core action without fluff, but is arguably under-specified. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but lacks sufficient detail for safe invocation.

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?

The tool has a complex nested parameter and no output schema. The description only covers the basic action, missing workflow context (e.g., needing prior preview/evaluate), error behavior, and return information. Compared to sibling tools like renamePreview and renameEvaluate, the description is minimal.

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 schema has 100% coverage with 'refactoring' described as 'The rename refactoring.' The tool description doesn't add any further detail about the structure or required fields of this object. Since coverage is high, the description is adequate but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Executes a rename refactoring' uses a specific verb ('executes') and names the resource, making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like renameEvaluate and renamePreview, which represent earlier stages, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 about when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It doesn't mention that renameEvaluate/renamePreview should precede execution, nor any conditions or prerequisites. This is a clear gap for a tool that likely has a dependent workflow.

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