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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckDataElement

Runs a syntax check on an ABAP data element and returns errors, warnings, and messages for active or inactive (unsaved) versions.

Instructions

[read-only] Runs a syntax check on the ABAP data element named by data_element_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": {
      "data_element_name": "<data_element_name>"
    },
    "name": "CheckDataElement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoWhich version to check. Without `version` the active version is checked; pass `inactive` for the unsaved one right after a write.
data_element_nameYesData element name.

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. Defaults to the inactive one, what a caller wants right after a write; an object that is only active has no inactive version, and SAP answers such a check with \"Error while importing object … from the database\" — ask for active."New value: +"Which version to check. 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 / data_element_name / description
      Previous value: -"Data element name (e.g., ZDE_MY_ELEMENT)."New value: +"Data element name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / version
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which version to check. Defaults to the inactive one, what a caller wants right after a write; an object that is only active has no inactive version, and SAP answers such a check with \"Error while importing object … from the database\" — ask for active.",
+  "enum": [
+    "active",
+    "inactive"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 does well: it declares [read-only], enumerates the return category (syntax errors, warnings, messages), and discloses a non-obvious batch-mode behavior where the call returns empty content and must be resolved by number via BatchAnswers. It does not state whether the check is bounded in time or whether it fails on nonexistent objects.

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?

Three short sentences, with the read-only marker and the core action front-loaded, followed by return values and the batch caveat. No filler, though the batch sentence is dense and would read better separated from the return-value sentence.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, result shape, and the batch-mode recording protocol that an agent would otherwise get wrong. Remaining gaps (timeouts, error behavior on missing objects) are minor.

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 already documents active vs inactive semantics in full, including the post-write inactive use case. The description only restates that data_element_name names the data element, adding nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Runs a syntax check on the ABAP data element") and names the target object type, which implicitly separates it from the many other Check* siblings like CheckTable and CheckClass. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or with GetDataElement, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: it is a validation step, and the batch paragraph explains the batch-mode contract. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over GetDataElement or ActivateDataElement, or that a check should follow an UpdateDataElement on the inactive version.

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