Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckFunctionGroup

Runs syntax checks on ABAP function groups to detect errors and warnings. Specify the function group name and optionally active/inactive version to review compile messages.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
function_group_nameYesFunction group name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (syntax errors, warnings, messages), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the check mutates state, permission requirements, or how the omitted-version default behaves — the latter matters a lot and is 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, purpose first, return values second, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Adequate minimum for a simple read-style check tool: purpose, resource, and return content are covered, and the parameter nuance is handled by the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could have said more about safety and how findings are scoped.

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%; the version parameter carries an unusually detailed description of the default-inactive pitfall. The description text adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (syntax check) and resource (ABAP function group), and names the return payload (errors, warnings, messages). This clearly separates it from sibling Check* tools that target classes, interfaces, tables, or function modules.

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 guidance on when to run this check versus RunATC or the other Check* tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no note about the active/inactive version decision (that trap lives only in the schema). The agent gets no routing help from the description itself.

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