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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetAbapAST

Parse ABAP source code outside batch mode and return the Abstract Syntax Tree as JSON, enabling static analysis and code structure inspection.

Instructions

[read-only] Parse ABAP code and return AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) in JSON format. Runs outside batch mode.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "GetAbapAST"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesABAP source code to parse

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv6.11.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / filePath
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional file path to write the result to",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description is crucial for transparency. It explicitly labels the operation as [read-only], immediately informing the agent about the safety profile of the tool, which is vital when no annotations are present.

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?

The definition is extremely efficient, front-loading the most critical pieces of information (read-only status, function, and output format) in a single, powerful sentence.

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?

Given that the output is complex (an AST in JSON format), stating that format is a helpful level of completeness. The combination of the input requirement and the operational constraint (outside batch mode) provides a solid foundation for agent selection.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the definition does not need to elaborate on the parameter structure. It provides no additional meaning or context regarding the 'code' parameter that isn't already covered by the schema description.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action (Parse) and the resource (ABAP code), specifying the output (AST in JSON). While similar tools exist in the sibling list, the focus on generating the AST provides a specific behavioral distinction.

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?

The description provides a critical operational constraint by stating it 'Runs outside batch mode,' which is essential guidance for ensuring the tool is applicable in the right execution context. It implicitly guides the user by describing what the tool does.

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