Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ActivateStructure

Activates an ABAP structure that remains inactive after creation or update, enabling it for use in the SAP system.

Instructions

Activate an ABAP structure. Use after CreateStructure or UpdateStructure 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.
structure_nameYesStructure 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 / structure_name / description
      Previous value: -"Structure name (e.g., ZST_MY_STRUCTURE)."New value: +"Structure 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a precondition (object must still be inactive) but says nothing about side effects, whether activation is a mutation, permission requirements, error behavior if already active, or what the activation result contains.

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 immediately after. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple activation operation with fully documented parameters and a session-management pattern already in the schema, the description is adequate on the input side. It is thin on the output side (no output schema) and does not hint at what activation returns, such as messages or remaining inactive objects.

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 detail, session_id, session_state, and structure_name are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at full coverage but yields only the baseline score.

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 and resource ("Activate an ABAP structure"), which cleanly separates it from the many other Activate* siblings that target tables, classes, domains, etc. It does not explicitly name the generic ActivateObjects alternative, so the differentiation is implied by resource rather than spelled out.

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 clear triggering condition: use it after CreateStructure or UpdateStructure when the object remains inactive. This is real guidance about lifecycle ordering, though it offers no exclusions (e.g., what to do if the object is already active, or when to prefer the bulk 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