ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

syntaxCheckCode

Check ABAP code for syntax errors to ensure proper compilation and execution in SAP systems.

Instructions

Perform ABAP syntax check with source code

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "syntaxCheckCode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`url`	No
`mainUrl`	No
`mainProgram`	No
`version`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects, safety, or return behavior. It only says 'perform... check' with no mention of whether it is read-only, modifies state, or requires authentication, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy, and it front-loads the action and object. It is appropriately concise, though perhaps too terse to be maximally useful.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely insufficient. It offers no context on prerequisites, optional parameters, expected results, or error conditions, making the tool nearly impossible 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with 5 parameters. The description only hints that 'code' holds source code, while 'url', 'mainUrl', 'version', and 'mainProgram' remain entirely unexplained. With heavy schema coverage reliance and no compensation, this is a critical gap.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('ABAP syntax check'), and mentions 'with source code' as the input. However, it does not distinguish from close siblings like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes'. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios, providing no usage context.

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

Deploy Server