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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tracesSetParameters

Configure trace parameters for ABAP system monitoring and debugging through the ABAP-ADT-API MCP server.

Instructions

Sets trace parameters.

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": {
      "parameters": "<parameters>"
    },
    "name": "tracesSetParameters"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parametersYesThe trace parameters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Sets trace parameters' without revealing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This is essentially missing information, not just a lack of detail.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any detail that would make it valuable, and the extreme brevity does not serve the agent effectively.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'trace parameters' are, how they should be formatted, or the effect of setting them, which is critical in a domain with many trace-related 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 schema has one parameter with a description covering 100% of the parameter semantics ('The trace parameters.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description uses a clear verb 'Sets' and identifies the resource 'trace parameters', providing a basic understanding of the action. However, it is vague and does not specify what 'parameters' means or distinguish this tool from sibling operations like tracesCreateConfiguration or tracesDeleteConfiguration, which also deal with trace configurations.

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 its many trace-related siblings. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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