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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckInterface

Run a syntax check on an ABAP interface to return syntax errors, warnings, and messages, optionally checking the inactive version after a write.

Instructions

[read-only] Runs a syntax check on the ABAP interface named by interface_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": {
      "interface_name": "<interface_name>"
    },
    "name": "CheckInterface"
  }
}

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.
interface_nameYesInterface 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 / 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"
+}
  3. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only and explains the non-obvious batch-mode behavior (empty content on call, answer retrieved later by number). It does not cover permissions or result size, which keeps it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return content, with the read-only tag leading. The batch sentence is dense but this is genuinely non-obvious information that 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 two-parameter check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return content, safety profile, and the batch quirk. The main gap is routing guidance against sibling check/get tools, which is a minor omission given the clear resource-based naming.

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%, so both parameters, including the enum semantics of `version`, are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes `interface_name` and adds no syntax or format details beyond it, 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 ('Runs a syntax check on the ABAP interface') and names the input that selects the target, which cleanly separates it from the many sibling Check* tools (CheckClass, CheckProgram, CheckTable) that share the same verb but operate on different object types.

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 only implied by the read-only tag and the batch-recording note; the description never says when to run this versus GetInterface or the version-diff siblings, nor mentions the inactive-version workflow. The hint about checking inactive after a write lives in the schema, not the 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