ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely performs analysis on code, this is inadequate.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at 6 words, which is efficient. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity and lack of other documentation. Every word earns its place, but more words might be warranted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with similar names, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a syntax check entails, what the tool returns, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'source code' which hints at the 'code' parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose of the other 4 optional parameters (url, mainUrl, mainProgram, version) or their relationships. This leaves most parameters semantically unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool performs an ABAP syntax check on source code, which is a clear purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'syntax check' and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes'.

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

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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this check is appropriate, or how it differs from other syntax-checking tools in the sibling list.

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