Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateDomain

Activate an ABAP domain to make it usable after creation or update. Use when the object remains inactive.

Instructions

Activate an ABAP domain. Use after CreateDomain or UpdateDomain if the object remains inactive.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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
session_idNoSession ID from GetSession. If not provided, a new session will be created.
domain_nameYesDomain name.
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 / domain_name / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name (e.g., ZDM_MY_DOMAIN)."New value: +"Domain name."
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It mentions the precondition that the object must be inactive, but says nothing about what activation changes, whether it requires permissions or a session, whether it is reversible, or what happens on failure—major gaps 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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the usage condition follows immediately, making it easy to scan.

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?

For an activation mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers when to invoke it but omits behavioral details such as session requirements, side effects, failure modes, and how it relates to the generic ActivateObjects sibling.

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 all four parameters including the detail enum and session fields. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Activate') and resource ('ABAP domain'), which distinguishes it from the many other Activate* siblings by resource type. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from generic activation tools like 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a clear triggering condition: use after CreateDomain or UpdateDomain when the object remains inactive. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative activation paths (e.g., ActivateObjects), so it is clear context without 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