Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CheckTable

Validate ABAP table syntax to catch errors before activation. Checks active, inactive, or hypothetical DDL code, returning syntax errors, warnings, and messages.

Instructions

Perform syntax check on an ABAP table. Can check existing table (active/inactive) or validate hypothetical DDL code. Returns syntax errors, warnings, and messages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoVersion to check: 'active', 'inactive', or 'new'. Default: new.
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 changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / table_name / description
      Previous value: -"Table name (e.g., ZMCP_MY_TABLE)."New value: +"Table name."
  2. Addedv6.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (syntax errors, warnings, messages), which implies a non-mutating check, but does not state whether checking a 'new' version has side effects or whether any state is created.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the mode distinction and return content. No filler, though the second sentence slightly overlaps the schema's enum description.

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 three-parameter check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, modes, and return shape adequately. It would be stronger if it clarified side effects for the 'new' version mode.

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 schema already documents all three parameters including the version enum. The description restates the two modes but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 and resource ('Perform syntax check on an ABAP table') and explains the two modes of operation. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like CheckDdl, which also validates DDL code.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: checking an existing table's active/inactive version, or validating hypothetical DDL. No explicit exclusions or sibling routing are given, keeping it short of a 5.

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