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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateObjects

Activates multiple ABAP repository objects—such as domains, data elements, tables, classes, and CDS views—together in a single activation, avoiding separate activation steps.

Instructions

Activates the repository objects named by objects (each a name and a type) together, in one activation: any object type, related objects such as domains, data elements and tables at once. Runs outside batch mode.

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": {
      "objects": "<objects>"
    },
    "name": "ActivateObjects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectsYesArray of objects to activate. Each object must have 'name' and 'type'.
preauditNoRequest pre-audit before activation. Default: true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / objects / items / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Object name in uppercase (e.g., ZOK7_D_MTART, ZCL_MY_CLASS)"New value: +"Object name in uppercase"
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 says the operation activates and 'runs outside batch mode', but does not disclose what a mutation of this kind entails: whether activation is atomic across the list, what happens on partial failure, whether objects must be inactive beforehand, or what happens to dependencies.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It could be broken up slightly for readability, but 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?

Schema fully documents both parameters and there is no output schema to explain, but the description leaves behavioral gaps (atomicity, failure handling, preconditions) that matter for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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%, with name/type and the full type-code enum documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'each a name and a type' but adds nothing about the preaudit parameter or the semantics of mixed-type activation 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 (activates) and resource (repository objects named by objects), and clarifies that heterogeneous types can be activated together in one call, which distinguishes it from the many single-type ActivateX siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

'together, in one activation' implies this is the bulk-activation path, and 'Runs outside batch mode' hints at a context constraint, but neither the alternatives (ActivateClass, ActivateTable, etc.) nor when-not-to-use is spelled out. 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