ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is read-only or can modify data, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., data changes), error handling, or output format. For a SQL execution tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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

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

Given the complexity of executing SQL queries (potential for data mutation, security implications) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like safety, permissions, result format, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for proper use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (sqlQuery, rowNumber, decode). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying SQL execution, which is already clear from the parameter names. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Runs') and target ('a SQL query on the target system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings that might also execute queries or interact with databases, such as 'tableContents' or 'ddicRepositoryAccess', which could have overlapping functionality.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'tableContents', 'ddicRepositoryAccess', or 'searchObject', there's no indication of whether this is for raw SQL execution, specific database types, or preferred over other query methods. This leaves the agent to guess based on context.

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