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

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

usageReferenceSnippets

Retrieve code snippets showing how ABAP objects are used across your system to understand dependencies and analyze implementation patterns.

Instructions

Retrieves usage reference snippets.

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": {
      "references": "<references>"
    },
    "name": "usageReferenceSnippets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referencesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieves', implying a read operation, but does not state return format, side effects, prerequisites, or any limits. This is minimal transparency.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It contributes almost no actionable information and does not earn its place, as it adds no value beyond the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single ambiguously-described parameter, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what usage reference snippets are, what input to provide, or what the user will get back. The tool may be simple, but the description still leaves critical gaps.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'references' (type array) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain this parameter at all, leaving its meaning and expected content completely ambiguous. For a tool with only one parameter, this is a significant omission.

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 states 'Retrieves usage reference snippets' which includes a verb and a resource, but 'usage reference snippets' is undefined jargon. The sibling tool 'usageReferences' exists, and the description does not differentiate between them, leaving the exact purpose unclear.

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. Sibling tool names include 'usageReferences', but no exclusions or contextual triggers are provided, so the use case is not at all specified.

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