ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

runClass

Execute ABAP classes directly from MCP clients to test functionality and verify code behavior in ABAP systems.

Instructions

Runs a class.

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": {
      "className": "<className>"
    },
    "name": "runClass"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`className`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose whether this is a read-only, mutating, or execution operation. 'Runs a class.' gives no information about side effects, error behavior, required permissions, or return value, making behavioral expectations completely opaque.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads a single phrase, yet every word merely echoes the tool name, and no useful information is conveyed to earn its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot reliably know what this tool does, when to call it, what inputs to provide, or what to expect in response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the schema gives only the parameter name 'className' and its type, with no description. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the literal name, failing to explain what class names are valid, how to format them, or what the parameter is used for.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Runs a class.' is nearly a verbatim restatement of the tool name 'runClass', providing no additional specificity about what 'run' means, what kind of class, or what the expected outcome is. It cannot be distinguished from sibling tools like unitTestRun or runQuery, making the purpose vague despite having a verb and object.

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 this tool instead of similar siblings such as unitTestRun, runQuery, or createTestInclude. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

Deploy Server