ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

setTransportsConfig

Configure transport settings for ABAP development by specifying URI, ETag, and configuration data to manage transport requests in ABAP systems.

Instructions

Sets transport configurations.

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": {
      "uri": "<uri>",
      "etag": "<etag>",
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "setTransportsConfig"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uri`	Yes	The URI for the transport configuration.
`etag`	Yes	The ETag for the transport configuration.
`config`	Yes	The transport configuration.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not mention optimistic locking via ETag, mutation semantics, conflict handling, prerequisites, or return values. The agent has no information about side effects or safety.

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 single sentence is concise but is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It only restates the tool name and provides no value, so the sentence does not 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?

With 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is wholly inadequate. It lacks return behavior, error cases, and operational context, making it impossible for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions (URI, ETag, config). The tool description adds no parameter context, but the high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3. The schema descriptions are minimal, but the description fails to enrich them.

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 'Sets transport configurations' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It does not clarify what 'sets' means (create vs update), which transport, or how it differs from siblings like createTransportsConfig or getTransportConfiguration.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 versus alternatives. With multiple transport-related sibling tools (createTransportsConfig, transportConfigurations, getTransportConfiguration), the absence of any usage context or exclusions is a critical gap.

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

Deploy Server