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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

renamePreview

Preview rename refactoring changes in ABAP code before applying them, showing potential impacts and required transports for safe code modifications.

Instructions

Previews 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": {
      "renameRefactoring": "<renameRefactoring>"
    },
    "name": "renamePreview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
renameRefactoringYesThe rename refactoring proposal.
transportNoThe transport.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, and the description 'Previews a rename refactoring' gives no detail about side effects, what the preview returns, or whether it is safe. The term 'preview' implies a read-only operation, but that is not explicitly stated.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is not a tautology and is appropriately brief, but it lacks enough substance to be considered genuinely helpful on this dimension.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context. It fails to explain what a 'preview' entails, how the transport parameter factors in, or how this relates to the renameExecure/renameEvaluate steps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the renameRefactoring object or the transport parameter beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the action ('Previews') and the resource ('a rename refactoring'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like renameEvaluate or renameExecute.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used before executing a rename or how it differs from the evaluate or execute variants.

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