abap-adt-doZimple

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sistemas SAP

sap_systems

Check configuration status of connected ABAP systems to see which instances are available for code reviews, transport queries, and ATC checks.

Instructions

Estado de la configuración de sistemas SAP.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sap_systems"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how expensive/slow the call may be. For a monitoring-style tool the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Estado', but nothing explicit is disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place that could explain what the returned status contains (fields, per-system grouping, pass/fail semantics), and it does not. For a zero-parameter tool the call itself is trivial, but the result shape is entirely opaque.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies since the schema imposes no burden the description must compensate for.

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 identifies the resource (SAP systems) and the aspect being reported (configuration status), which is more than a tautology. However, it has no explicit verb, so it is ambiguous whether the tool reads, validates, or monitors configuration, and there are no siblings to differentiate against.

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 invoke this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to any other capability. The single sentence is purely a label and leaves all usage decisions to inference.

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

sap_systemsC