Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckBehaviorDefinition

Validates ABAP behavior definitions (BDEF) for syntax errors, warnings, and messages before activation. Specify active or inactive version to target the correct check.

Instructions

Perform syntax check on an ABAP behavior definition (BDEF). Returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBehaviorDefinition name.
versionNoWhich version to check — it goes into the checkrun body as chkrun:version, as ADT sends it. Omitted, the inactive one is checked; an object that is only active has none, and SAP answers such a check with a finding against an empty source (e.g. G46 "REPORT/PROGRAM statement is missing") or "Inactive version … does not exist" — ask for active.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"BehaviorDefinition name (e.g., ZI_MY_BDEF)."New value: +"BehaviorDefinition name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / version
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which version to check — it goes into the checkrun body as chkrun:version, as ADT sends it. Omitted, the inactive one is checked; an object that is only active has none, and SAP answers such a check with a finding against an empty source (e.g. G46 \"REPORT/PROGRAM statement is missing\") or \"Inactive version … does not exist\" — ask for active.",
+  "enum": [
+    "active",
+    "inactive"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content (syntax errors, warnings, messages), which is genuinely useful behavioral information. However it does not state that the operation is read-only/non-persisting, whether it requires an activation lock, or any permission constraints, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a mutation-adjacent check tool.

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 sentences with zero redundancy: the first front-loads purpose and resource, the second covers the return contract. Since no output schema exists, the return statement is informative rather than filler, so every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity, 2-parameter check tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both purpose and return shape adequately. It is slightly thin on behavioral/read-only semantics, but the detailed 'version' param schema compensates for much of the operational nuance an agent needs.

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 'version' parameter carries unusually rich guidance (inactive default, active fallback behavior, empty-source findings). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 (syntax check) and resource (ABAP behavior definition / BDEF), so it is distinguishable from the Get/Update/Activate/Create BehaviorDefinition siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the Check* family (CheckClass, CheckTable, CheckDdl), but the resource-specific naming makes the intent unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It never says whether this is a pre-activation gate, whether it overlaps with RunATC/GetATCFindings, or that it should be used before ActivateBehaviorDefinition. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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