Skip to main content
Glama

CheckStructure

Runs a syntax check on an ABAP structure, either an active or inactive saved version or supplied DDL code, and returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages.

Instructions

[read-only] Runs a syntax check on the ABAP structure named by structure_name. Can check existing structure (active/inactive) or validate hypothetical DDL code. 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": {
      "structure_name": "<structure_name>"
    },
    "name": "CheckStructure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoVersion to check: 'active' or 'inactive'. Without `version` the active version is checked.
ddl_codeNoOptional: DDL source code to validate instead of the saved version.
structure_nameYesStructure name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv20.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Previous value: -"Version to check: 'active' or 'inactive'. Default: inactive."New value: +"Version to check: 'active' or 'inactive'. Without `version` the active version is checked."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / structure_name / description
      Previous value: -"Structure name (e.g., ZST_MY_STRUCTURE)."New value: +"Structure name."
  3. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior, describes the returned syntax errors/warnings/messages, and explains the important batch-mode recording semantics. It omits permission requirements and error behavior for invalid structure names.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage modes, return content, and batch behavior in tight sentences. Every sentence provides information an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: read-only nature, modes, return content, and batch recording. It could clarify whether structure_name is still required when ddl_code is supplied, and what errors occur on invalid input.

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 the parameter schema already documents version, ddl_code, and structure_name. The description reinforces the active/inactive and hypothetical-DDL concepts but adds no syntax, format, or dependency details beyond the schema.

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 (runs a syntax check) and resource (ABAP structure named by structure_name), and distinguishes the two modes: checking an existing structure versus validating hypothetical DDL code. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the two usage contexts (existing active/inactive structure vs hypothetical DDL), which is clear guidance. It does not name alternatives such as CheckDdl or CheckTable or state exclusions, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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