ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

setObjectSource

Update ABAP object source code in the development system using the ADT API. Provide the object URL, source content, and lock handle to modify program logic or data definitions.

Instructions

Sets source code for ABAP objects

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": {
      "objectSourceUrl": "<objectSourceUrl>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "lockHandle": "<lockHandle>"
    },
    "name": "setObjectSource"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`objectSourceUrl`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`lockHandle`	Yes
`transport`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('sets') but doesn't mention whether it overwrites existing source, requires a lock, or has other side effects. No constraints or consequences are disclosed.

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 only one sentence, but this brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It is under-specified and doesn't earn its place as a useful tool guide, resembling a tautological statement rather than a concise, informative description.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a complex operation requiring lock handles and object source URLs, this minimal description is inadequate. It doesn't explain preconditions, return values, or the broader editing workflow, making it very hard for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema lists four string parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no semantic meaning to parameters like lockHandle or objectSourceUrl, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of information.

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 'Sets' with a resource 'source code for ABAP objects', clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like getObjectSource, though it leaves ambiguity about whether it updates existing objects or creates new ones.

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 given on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., lock handle acquisition), or alternatives. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like createObject or setTransportsConfig, and no usage context is provided.

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

Deploy Server