Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckDomain

Run a syntax check on an ABAP domain to surface errors, warnings, and messages before activation or after edits.

Instructions

Perform syntax check on an ABAP domain. Returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoWhich 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.
domain_nameYesDomain name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain_name / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name (e.g., ZDM_MY_DOMAIN)."New value: +"Domain 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"
+}
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (syntax errors, warnings, messages), which is useful, but says nothing about side effects, preconditions, or which versions are applicable; the version-import pitfall is documented only in the schema.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence efficiently covers the return content. No filler.

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 check tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves out the workflow context an agent needs — e.g., the relationship to ActivateDomain and the active/inactive version behavior, which matters given how many Check* tools exist.

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's schema text is unusually detailed (defaults to inactive, active-only objects error out). The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the work.

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?

The description names a specific verb (syntax check) and a specific resource (ABAP domain), so it is easily distinguished from the large Check* family (CheckClass, CheckTable, CheckDdl, etc.) by resource. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or with ActivateDomain.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say to run this before ActivateDomain, nor that it operates against the active/inactive version. The only usage-relevant context lives in the version parameter's schema description, not in the tool description.

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