Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateServiceBinding

Activate an ABAP service binding that remains inactive after creation or update to make it usable in the SAP system.

Instructions

Activate an ABAP service binding. Use after CreateServiceBinding or UpdateServiceBinding if the object remains inactive.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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
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.

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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 behavioral burden. Beyond implying a state-changing operation, it says nothing about side effects, required permissions, whether activation is idempotent, or what occurs if the object is already active.

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 with zero padding; the action is front-loaded and the usage condition follows immediately.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers purpose and usage but omits behavioral context (permissions, failure modes, effects). Adequate but with a clear gap given the absence of structured hints.

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 all four parameters (name, detail, session_id, session_state) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats or interactions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Activate) and resource (ABAP service binding), making it immediately distinguishable from GetServiceBinding, DeleteServiceBinding, ValidateServiceBinding and the many other Activate* siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering tools (CreateServiceBinding, UpdateServiceBinding) and the condition under which activation is warranted ('if the object remains inactive'), so the agent knows when this follows on from those operations. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g., using ActivateObjects for batches), so it falls just short of a 5.

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