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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

syntaxCheckCdsUrl

Validate ABAP code syntax by checking CDS view URLs to identify errors before deployment.

Instructions

Perform ABAP syntax check with CDS URL

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": {
      "cdsUrl": "<cdsUrl>"
    },
    "name": "syntaxCheckCdsUrl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cdsUrlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Perform ABAP syntax check', which implies a validation operation but does not disclose side effects, required session/permissions, or return format. No information about whether the check modifies anything or what happens on success/failure.

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 a single sentence with no redundant wording, which is good for front-loading. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies important behavioral and usage details.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate to fully understand the tool. It does not state what the syntax check returns (e.g., error list), whether it requires an active session, or any limitations. The complexity is low but the information is insufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has one required parameter 'cdsUrl' with no description (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'CDS URL', which is effectively the parameter name and adds no additional semantics about URL format, scheme, or examples.

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 states 'Perform ABAP syntax check with CDS URL', which is a specific action with a clear resource and input type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like syntaxCheckCode by specifying CDS URL, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as syntaxCheckCode or syntaxCheckTypes. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or 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