Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckFunctionModule

Perform a syntax check on an ABAP function module to surface errors, warnings, and messages, ensuring code quality before activation.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoVersion to check: 'active' or 'inactive'. Default: active.
function_group_nameYesFunction group name containing the function module.
function_module_nameYesFunction module name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / function_module_name / description
      Previous value: -"Function module name (e.g., Z_MY_FUNCTION)."New value: +"Function module name."
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full load. It discloses that the check returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages, which is useful output context, but it does not state that the operation is read-only or mention any permission requirements. This partial disclosure warrants a mid-range score.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action, followed by the return description. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and return values adequately. It lacks usage guidelines, but given the clear name and full schema, an agent can invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the structured data. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Perform syntax check') and resource ('ABAP function module'). It distinguishes itself from sibling Check* tools like CheckFunctionGroup by naming the exact object type. The second sentence clarifies the return values.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as CheckFunctionGroup or GetFunctionModule. It simply states what it does without any conditions 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