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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tableContents

Retrieve and filter data from ABAP tables or views using SQL queries, with options to limit rows and decode content for analysis.

Instructions

Retrieves the contents of an ABAP table.

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": {
      "ddicEntityName": "<ddicEntityName>"
    },
    "name": "tableContents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ddicEntityNameYesThe name of the DDIC entity (table or view).
rowNumberNoThe maximum number of rows to retrieve.
decodeNoWhether to decode the data.
sqlQueryNoAn optional SQL query to filter the data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. 'Retrieves' clearly indicates a read operation, but the description does not disclose the return format, behavior of optional parameters like decode or sqlQuery, or any prerequisites or limits. It adds minimal context beyond the verb.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence contains exactly the essential information with no filler words or unnecessary details.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return value; 'contents' is vague but acceptable. The optional parameters (sqlQuery, rowNumber, decode) are not described in the tool description, but the schema covers them. The description is adequate but not comprehensive, especially given the number of sibling tools.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so the description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema covers the parameter details.

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 the tool 'retrieves the contents of an ABAP table' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nodeContents by explicitly mentioning ABAP table, though it doesn't explicitly compare to 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to similar tools like runQuery or nodeContents. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or alternative approaches.

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