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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckFunctionGroup

Runs a syntax check on an ABAP function group and returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages; optionally checks the inactive version after a write.

Instructions

[read-only] Runs a syntax check on the ABAP function group named by function_group_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": {
      "function_group_name": "<function_group_name>"
    },
    "name": "CheckFunctionGroup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
function_group_nameYesFunction group 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 — 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 / function_group_name / description
      Previous value: -"Function group name (e.g., ZFGRP_MY_GROUP)."New value: +"Function group 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
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations were supplied, and the description carries the burden well: it declares the operation read-only and discloses the non-obvious batch-mode recording behavior (empty content returned, answer retrieved by number after batch). That is exactly the kind of trait an agent could not infer from 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?

Three short sentences: what it does, what it returns, and the batch caveat — each front-loaded and earning its place, with no filler.

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?

Complete for a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema: operation, return categories, version selection (via schema), and batch semantics are all covered. Only minor gaps remain around failure behavior for an invalid or nonexistent function group name.

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 coverage is 100% and the `version` parameter already has a rich enum description covering active vs. inactive semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond naming `function_group_name`, so 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+resource ('Runs a syntax check on the ABAP function group') and enumerates the return content. The resource name inherently distinguishes it from siblings like CheckFunctionModule, CheckProgram, and CheckInterface, though it never explicitly says so.

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 implied — check a function group's syntax — but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer CheckFunctionModule, CheckInclude, or ActivateFunctionGroup instead, nor on prerequisites (e.g., must the group exist/be locked?).

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