Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateFunctionGroup

Activates an ABAP function group after creation or update when it remains inactive. Makes the object active and ready for use.

Instructions

Activate an ABAP function group. Use after CreateFunctionGroup or UpdateFunctionGroup 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.
session_stateNoSession state from GetSession (cookies, csrf_token, cookie_store). Required if session_id is provided.
function_group_nameYesFunction group name.

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 / function_group_name / description
      Previous value: -"Function group name (e.g., Z_FG_TEST)."New value: +"Function group name."
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 burden. It implies a state-changing operation but says nothing about side effects, lock/transport implications, permission requirements, or whether activation is reversible or can fail on errors in the group. All of that is left to inference for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the action stated first and the precondition second. Nothing redundant.

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?

Purpose and the key usage condition are covered, and the rich schema compensates for parameter details. With no annotations and no output schema, however, the description omits behavioral aspects (side effects, failure modes, session handling relevance) that an agent would want before invoking a state-changing operation.

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 every parameter (function_group_name, session_id, session_state, detail) is already documented in the schema, including the detail enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific resource (ABAP function group), which cleanly distinguishes it from the many non-activation siblings. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from generic siblings like ActivateObjects or the parallel ActivateFunctionModule, but the specific resource noun makes the target unambiguous.

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 a concrete usage condition: call it after CreateFunctionGroup or UpdateFunctionGroup when the object remains inactive. That routes the agent well for the common case, though it never explains when to prefer the generic ActivateObjects instead or what to do if activation fails.

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