Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckMetadataExtension

Run a syntax check on an ABAP metadata extension (DDLX) to return syntax errors, warnings, and messages for active or inactive versions.

Instructions

Perform syntax check on an ABAP metadata extension (DDLX). Returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesMetadata extension name.
versionNoWhich version to check: 'active' (default) or 'inactive', the unsaved one right after a write. This endpoint does not fall back to whichever exists.active

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Metadata extension name (e.g., ZC_MY_DDLX)."New value: +"Metadata extension name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / version
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "active",
+  "description": "Which version to check: 'active' (default) or 'inactive', the unsaved one right after a write. This endpoint does not fall back to whichever exists.",
+  "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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (syntax errors, warnings, messages), which is useful, but it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free diagnostic or what permissions/state it requires. For a check tool this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and zero padding. The second sentence earns its place by stating the return shape, though it is fairly generic.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does at least describe the nature of the output (errors, warnings, messages). For a two-parameter diagnostic tool this is close to complete, though it could say more about the object's expected state and that it does not mutate anything.

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 both `name` and `version` (including the active/inactive behavior and no-fallback note) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource: a syntax check on an ABAP metadata extension (DDLX). This clearly separates it from the Create/Get/Update/Delete metadata-extension siblings by the 'check' verb. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the other Check* siblings (e.g., CheckDdl), though the resource name does the work implicitly.

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: run this to validate a DDLX for syntax problems. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an object must exist), and no routing against related tools like ActivateMetadataExtension or CheckDdl. A reader can infer intent but nothing is spelled out.

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