Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckInterface

Run a syntax check on an ABAP interface to get errors, warnings, and messages.

Instructions

Perform syntax check on an ABAP interface. 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.
interface_nameYesInterface name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / interface_name / description
      Previous value: -"Interface name (e.g., ZIF_MY_INTERFACE)."New value: +"Interface 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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little: it never states that the check is non-mutating, that it does not change the object's state, or that the default target is the inactive version (that caveat lives only in the schema). Reporting the return content is the only behavioral information offered.

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 then the result. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 two-parameter check tool with no output schema and near-total schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: the agent knows the action, the subject, and the output category, and the schema supplies the version semantics. Only the absence of any usage/ordering context (e.g., relative to activation) keeps it from being fully complete.

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 far richer than anything in the description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Perform syntax check on an ABAP interface') and adds the shape of the result ('syntax errors, warnings, and messages'). Within a large Check* family (CheckClass, CheckTable, CheckDdl, CheckFunctionGroup), naming the resource makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this check (e.g., before ActivateInterface, or as an alternative to RunATC/GetATCFindings), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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