ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

runQuery

Execute SQL queries on ABAP systems to retrieve and analyze data directly through the ABAP Development Tools API.

Instructions

Runs a SQL query on the target system.

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": {
      "sqlQuery": "<sqlQuery>"
    },
    "name": "runQuery"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sqlQuery`	Yes	The SQL query to execute.
`rowNumber`	No	The maximum number of rows to retrieve.
`decode`	No	Whether to decode the data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Runs' does not specify whether the SQL query is read-only or can mutate data, nor does it mention output format, error behavior, or permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely executes arbitrary SQL.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters are already documented in the schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens after the query runs (return format, row limits, errors), nor does it disclose potential side effects. An agent would lack critical context for selection and invocation.

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%, so all three parameters (decode, sqlQuery, rowNumber) are adequately documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Runs a SQL query on the target system.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, none of which are SQL-related. However, the phrase 'target system' is somewhat vague, so it doesn't fully specify the context.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other tools like runClass or searchObject. The description offers no decision-relevant context.

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

Deploy Server