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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckBehaviorDefinition

Run syntax checks on RAP behavior definitions (BDEFs) to return errors, warnings, and messages, with active or inactive version selection for post-write validation.

Instructions

[read-only] Runs a syntax check on the RAP behavior definition (BDEF) named by name. Returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages. 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": "CheckBehaviorDefinition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBehaviorDefinition name.
versionNoWhich version to check — it goes into the checkrun body as chkrun:version, as ADT sends it. Without `version` the active version is checked; pass `inactive` for the unsaved one right after a write.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv20.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"Which version to check — it goes into the checkrun body as chkrun:version, as ADT sends it. Without `version` the active version is checked; pass `inactive` for the unsaved one right after a write."
  2. 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"
+}
  3. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No structured annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden and does so reasonably: it marks the tool as [read-only], says it returns syntax errors/warnings/messages, and explains the non-obvious batch recording behavior. It does not cover authorization requirements or more detailed side-effect constraints, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

The description is three focused sentences with no wasted text. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the batch-recording caveat is compactly summarized after the core behavior.

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 check tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: it explains the input resource, the returned categories, and the batch behavior. It could more explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites, but no critical invocation detail is missing.

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 schema already documents both `name` and `version`, including the active/inactive enum semantics. The description only repeats that the BDEF is named by `name` and adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it runs a syntax check on the RAP behavior definition (BDEF) named by `name`. The BDEF resource makes it clearly distinguishable from the many other `Check*` siblings such as CheckClass or CheckTable. It also states what is returned: syntax errors, warnings, and messages.

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?

The context is clear enough to imply when to use it: checking the syntax of a BDEF. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of related tools like GetBehaviorDefinition, ActivateBehaviorDefinition, or other Check* tools, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions.

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