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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateServiceBinding

Activates an OData service binding by name so its inactive version takes effect. Use it to promote a binding in one call, with terse, full, or raw detail and batch recording.

Instructions

Activates the OData service binding named by 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ActivateServiceBinding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesService binding name.
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

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 / name / description
      Previous value: -"Service binding name (e.g., ZSB_MY_SERVICE)."New value: +"Service binding name."
  3. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: the mutation semantics (inactive → active) and the non-obvious batch/recordable contract where the call returns empty content and the real answer is read later by number. It stops short of permissions, error behavior, or what happens if no inactive version exists.

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, no filler, with the core effect front-loaded and the batch-mode caveat placed second. The batch sentence is dense but every clause (recording, next number, empty answer, read after batch) carries information an agent needs.

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 activation tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters most: what changes on the server and how the response behaves in batch mode. It is only short of permission/error prerequisites, which is a modest gap for a low-complexity mutation.

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% and the `detail` enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the binding is identified by `name` and adds no extra semantics for either parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Activates) and resource (the OData service binding named by `name`) plus the concrete effect: the inactive version is put in force. Against siblings like CreateServiceBinding, UpdateServiceBinding, DeleteServiceBinding, and ActivateServiceDefinition, the operation is unmistakable without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers you call this when a binding is inactive and you want it live. There is no guidance on prerequisites (must an inactive version exist?), on when to prefer this over ActivateObjects, or on failure modes.

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