Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

stageRepo

Stage changes in a Git repository for version control and commit preparation. Use this tool to manage ABAP development workflows through the ABAP-ADT-API MCP server.

Instructions

Stages changes in a Git repository.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "stageRepo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesThe Git repository object.
userNoThe username.
passwordNoThe password.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It states the action ('stages changes') but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication (despite user/password parameters), or what the impact on the index is.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary verb and object, making it easy to parse, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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?

The tool description is minimal, with no output schema and no annotations to rely on. It fails to explain the return value, side effects, or prerequisites for using the tool, leaving the agent without key context.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage (repo, user, password), providing the baseline. The description adds no information about parameter semantics, such as the structure of the repo object or how user/password are used.

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 the specific verb 'stages' and identifies the resource ('changes in a Git repository'), which clearly conveys a git staging operation and distinguishes from sibling tools like pushRepo or gitPullRepo. However, it does not specify scope (e.g., all changes vs. selected files) or the staging target, so it is clear but not fully complete.

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 git-related siblings. It does not mention use cases such as preparing a commit or any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools