Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateBehaviorDefinition

Activates a RAP behavior definition to make it active when it remains inactive after creation or update.

Instructions

Activate a RAP behavior definition. Use after CreateBehaviorDefinition or UpdateBehaviorDefinition if the object remains inactive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBehavior definition name (root entity).
detailNoHow much of the answer to return: "terse" (default, the fields you need to act), "full" (the whole parse), "raw" (the document as ADT sent it).terse
session_idNoSession ID from GetSession. If not provided, a new session will be created.
session_stateNoSession state from GetSession (cookies, csrf_token, cookie_store). Required if session_id is provided.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "terse",
+  "description": "How much of the answer to return: \"terse\" (default, the fields you need to act), \"full\" (the whole parse), \"raw\" (the document as ADT sent it).",
+  "enum": [
+    "terse",
+    "full",
+    "raw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Behavior definition name (root entity, e.g., ZI_MY_ENTITY)."New value: +"Behavior definition name (root entity)."
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys some behavioral context (activation resolves an object left inactive after create/update), but says nothing about side effects, permission needs, whether activation triggers dependency/compilation failures, or reversibility. Adequate but incomplete for a state-changing operation.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the workflow condition second and no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple scope-activation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its place in the create/update workflow. The main gap is the absence of any note on activation dependencies or side effects, which matters more given there are no annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, detail, session_id, and session_state. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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.

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Activate) and resource (RAP behavior definition), which distinguishes it from the many other Activate* siblings that target different object types. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit context — use it after CreateBehaviorDefinition or UpdateBehaviorDefinition when the object remains inactive — and names both relevant siblings. It does not mention the generic ActivateObjects alternative for batch activation, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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