Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CreateMessageClassMessage

Add a message number and text to an existing ABAP message class (T100); create the parent class first.

Instructions

Add a message (number + text) to an existing ABAP message class (T100). The parent class must exist first (CreateMessageClass).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
msgnoYesMessage number (e.g., "001").
msgtextYesMessage text. May contain placeholders &1 &2 &3 &4 (or &).
descriptionNo(optional) Long description for the message.
self_explanatoryNo(optional) Mark the message as self-explanatory (no long text needed). Default: false.
transport_requestNo(optional) Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects.
message_class_nameYesParent message class name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / message_class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Parent message class name (e.g., ZMY_MSGS)."New value: +"Parent message class name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"(optional) Transport request number. Required for transportable objects."New value: +"(optional) Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects."
  2. Addedv8.6.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key ordering constraint (parent class must pre-exist), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about duplicate message-number behavior, transport/authorization requirements, or whether the message must be activated afterwards.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite but omits post-conditions such as activation state, duplicate handling, and transport implications. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent operating unattended.

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%, including placeholder syntax for msgtext and the optional fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely maps to 'number + text' and adds nothing the schema does not already state.

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 — adding a numbered message text to an existing ABAP message class (T100). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like CreateMessageClass, UpdateMessageClassMessage, and DeleteMessageClassMessage, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite: the parent class must exist first, and it names CreateMessageClass as the tool that satisfies it. It does not, however, contrast with UpdateMessageClassMessage for editing an existing message number or note when this is inappropriate.

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