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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckTable

Runs a syntax check on an ABAP database table by name, checking active, inactive, or hypothetical DDL code and returning syntax errors, warnings, and messages.

Instructions

[read-only] Runs a syntax check on the ABAP database table named by table_name. Can check existing table (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": {
      "table_name": "<table_name>"
    },
    "name": "CheckTable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoVersion to check: 'active', 'inactive', or 'new'. Without `version` the active version is checked.
ddl_codeNoOptional: DDL source code to validate instead of the saved version.
table_nameYesTable 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', 'inactive', or 'new'. Default: new."New value: +"Version to check: 'active', 'inactive', or 'new'. Without `version` the active version is checked."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / table_name / description
      Previous value: -"Table name (e.g., ZMCP_MY_TABLE)."New value: +"Table name."
  3. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it declares read-only, states the output is syntax errors/warnings/messages, and explains the non-obvious batch recording semantics (empty content returned, answer retrieved later by number). It omits any error/failure behavior or permission requirements, keeping it short of a 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (accepted inputs, return content, batch behavior). The batch sentence is long but carries information that is otherwise undiscoverable, so it 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming the return content (errors, warnings, messages), and it covers both usage modes plus the unusual batch/recordable lifecycle. Adequate for a 3-parameter read-only check tool, though interaction rules between version and ddl_code remain unaddressed.

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% and the enum for version is documented in the schema itself, so the description mostly restates it ('active/inactive', 'hypothetical DDL code'). It adds no format, length, or interaction detail (e.g. what happens if ddl_code and version are both supplied), so baseline 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 (runs a syntax check) against a specific resource (the ABAP database table named by table_name), and adds that it also validates hypothetical DDL. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the very similar sibling CheckDdl, which an agent could easily confuse given the overlap in DDL validation.

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?

Implies the two modes (checking a saved active/inactive version vs validating supplied DDL), but never states when to prefer CheckTable over CheckDdl for DDL source, nor any prerequisites like needing an active/inactive object to exist. Usage is inferable rather than 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