Skip to main content
Glama
ethanhan2014

SAP ADT MCP Server

by ethanhan2014

publish_service_binding

Publish an OData service binding by providing its name and version to make it accessible in an SAP system. Optionally specify a system ID to target a specific system.

Instructions

Publish an OData service binding to make it accessible

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
binding_nameYesService binding name
binding_versionYesService version (e.g. 0001)
system_idNoSAP system ID (e.g. DEV). Omit to use default system.

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'publish_service_binding' tool in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, defining its name, description, and input schema (binding_name and binding_version).
      name: "publish_service_binding",
      description: "Publish an OData service binding to make it accessible",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          binding_name: { type: "string", description: "Service binding name" },
          binding_version: { type: "string", description: "Service version (e.g. 0001)" },
          ...SYSTEM_ID_PROP,
        },
        required: ["binding_name", "binding_version"],
      },
    },
  • Handler in CallToolRequestSchema that parses args with ServiceBindingSchema and delegates to client.publishServiceBinding().
    case "publish_service_binding": {
      const { binding_name, binding_version } = ServiceBindingSchema.parse(args);
      const result = await client.publishServiceBinding(binding_name, binding_version);
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: result }] };
    }
  • Zod schema for service binding operations, validating binding_name and binding_version as required strings.
    const ServiceBindingSchema = z.object({
      binding_name: z.string(),
      binding_version: z.string(),
    });
  • Actual HTTP implementation in AdtClient: sends an empty POST to the ADT publish endpoint with CSRF token handling.
    async publishServiceBinding(name: string, version: string): Promise<string> {
      const encoded = encodeURIComponent(name.toUpperCase());
      return (await this.postWithCsrf(
        `/sap/bc/adt/ddic/srvb/srvbsources/${encoded}/publish?version=${encodeURIComponent(version)}`,
        "",
        "*/*"
      )).data as string;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, description must fully disclose behavior. Only states 'make it accessible', which is vague. Does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or that this modifies the binding state. Minimal transparency beyond the name.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One sentence, no waste, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. Conciseness is positive, but the lack of essential details makes it merely average.

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 no output schema and complexity of OData publishing in ABAP, description is incomplete. No prerequisites, no explanation of what 'accessible' means, no mention of response or side effects. Siblings like unpublish_service_binding highlight the need for contrast.

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?

Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra context about parameters (e.g., format, constraints). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already describes them adequately.

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?

Description clearly states it publishes an OData service binding to make it accessible, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like unpublish_service_binding, but could specify the binding must already exist for publishing.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., unpublish_service_binding). Does not mention prerequisites like the binding must already be created, or systems must be connected. Description is purely definitional.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ethanhan2014/sap-adt-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server