Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateFunctionModule

Activate an ABAP function module that remains inactive after an update. Use after UpdateFunctionModule to resolve the inactive status.

Instructions

Activate an ABAP function module. Use after UpdateFunctionModule 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.
function_module_nameYesFunction module name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / function_module_name / description
      Previous value: -"Function module name (e.g., Z_FM_TEST)."New value: +"Function module 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 exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of what activation changes, whether it fails on syntax errors, whether it needs an existing session/lock, or whether the operation is reversible. Only the implicit mutation semantics can be inferred from the verb.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the precondition second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing signal.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on failure modes and return expectations, though the 100%-covered schema handles the input side. It is minimally sufficient to invoke but leaves the agent guessing about activation errors.

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%, with function_module_name, function_group_name, session_id, session_state and detail all documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, such as that the two required names identify the object to activate.

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?

Specific verb (Activate) plus a specific resource (ABAP function module), so the agent knows exactly what the tool performs. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like ActivateObjects or ActivateFunctionGroup, which is the only gap.

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?

"Use after UpdateFunctionModule if the object remains inactive" gives a concrete trigger condition tied to a named sibling, which is above-average routing guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. preferring ActivateFunctionGroup or batch ActivateObjects).

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