Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-abap-adt

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateDataElement

Activates an ABAP data element by name so its inactive version becomes active and usable in the SAP system.

Instructions

Activates the ABAP data element named by data_element_name, so its inactive version is in force. Recordable: in batch mode a call is recorded under the next number and answers with empty content; its answer is read by number after the batch ends.

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": {
      "data_element_name": "<data_element_name>"
    },
    "name": "ActivateDataElement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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
data_element_nameYesData element name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv20.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / session_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Session ID from GetSession. If not provided, a new session will be created.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / session_state
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Session state from GetSession (cookies, csrf_token, cookie_store). Required if session_id is provided.",
-  "properties": {
-    "cookie_store": {},
-    "cookies": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "csrf_token": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / data_element_name / description
      Previous value: -"Data element name (e.g., ZDT_MY_ELEMENT)."New value: +"Data element name."
    • 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"
+}
  3. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavior: in batch mode the call is recorded and returns empty content, read back by number later. That is valuable, but it omits whether activation requires a transport, lock, or special authorization, and what a non-batch response looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, with the batch caveat second. The "Recordable:" clause is dense but every element is actionable; nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the effect and the batch-mode return semantics, which is the main gap an agent would hit. It still leaves prerequisites and failure modes unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, including a fully documented enum for `detail`, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only ties `data_element_name` to the activation target and adds no format or naming-convention detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Activates the ABAP data element named by data_element_name") and adds the effect ("so its inactive version is in force"), which separates it from Create/Update/DeleteDataElement siblings by intent. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as ActivateObjects, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the step to run after an Update leaves an inactive version behind. There is no explicit "use when X, not Y" guidance, and bulk activation via ActivateObjects is never mentioned.

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