ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

transportsByConfig

Retrieve transport requests using a configuration URI to manage ABAP development workflows and include target systems when needed.

Instructions

Retrieves transports by configuration.

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": {
      "configUri": "<configUri>"
    },
    "name": "transportsByConfig"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`configUri`	Yes	The configuration URI.
`targets`	No	Whether to include target systems.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'retrieves,' implying a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens with the optional 'targets' parameter. The role of the configuration URI is also unexplained.

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?

The description consists of a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means the agent receives no information about the response format or how the configuration filters transports. Additional context about distinguishing from getTransportConfiguration would improve completeness.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions (configUri and targets), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient clarification, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Retrieves) and resource (transports) with a qualifier (by configuration), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like transportConfigurations or getTransportConfiguration, which could lead to confusion.

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 the many transport-related alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for other use cases.

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

Deploy Server