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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateDomain

Activates an ABAP domain by name, putting its inactive version into force. Use it to make pending domain changes live in the SAP system.

Instructions

Activates the ABAP domain named by domain_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": {
      "domain_name": "<domain_name>"
    },
    "name": "ActivateDomain"
  }
}

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
domain_nameYesDomain 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
    • 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."
  3. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real value: it discloses the mutation effect on the object's version state and the non-obvious batch-mode contract (call recorded under the next number, empty content returned, result read by number afterwards), which ties into BatchAnswers. It stops short of stating failure behavior, preconditions such as syntax checks, or whether a transport entry is created.

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 core action and effect; nothing is wasteful. The second sentence is a dense run-on that packs the entire batch protocol in one breath, which slightly hurts readability.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the action, its effect on version state, and the batch recording protocol. Missing only activation-failure semantics and prerequisite context (checks, transport handling) that an agent would want before firing a mutating call.

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%, and the 'detail' enum is fully self-documented in the schema (terse/full/raw). The description only echoes that domain_name is the target domain, adding no format or naming conventions beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Activates') and resource ('the ABAP domain named by domain_name') and explains the effect: the inactive version becomes active. The resource name separates it from the many Activate* siblings (ActivateClass, ActivateTable, ActivateDataElement), but the description never explicitly contrasts with them or with the generic ActivateObjects.

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?

The phrase 'so its inactive version is in force' implies when to use it (after edits that produced an inactive version), but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives such as ActivateObjects or the Check* tools that might precede activation. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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