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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetAdtTypes

Retrieve all valid ADT object types or validate a specific type name before building ABAP tooling requests. Use it to confirm accepted types such as CLAS, TABL, PROG, DEVC, and more.

Instructions

[read-only] Retrieve all valid ADT object types (CLAS, TABL, PROG, DEVC, FUGR, INTF, DDLS, DTEL, DOMA, SRVD, SRVB, BDEF, DDLX, etc.) or validate a specific type name. 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

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "GetAdtTypes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNoHow much of the answer to return: "terse" (default, the fields you need to act), "full" (the whole parse), "raw" (the document as ADT sent it).terse
validate_typeNoType name to validate (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "terse",
+  "description": "How much of the answer to return: \"terse\" (default, the fields you need to act), \"full\" (the whole parse), \"raw\" (the document as ADT sent it).",
+  "enum": [
+    "terse",
+    "full",
+    "raw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it declares [read-only] and discloses the non-obvious batch contract (call is recorded under the next number and returns empty content; the answer is read by number afterwards). That is a real trap flagged proactively; it stops short of covering error behavior for an invalid validate_type or output shape.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the read-only marker and the primary purpose, then the batch caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical type list is long but legitimately useful for recognition.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both invocation modes and the cross-cutting batch behavior. Only the invalid-type outcome and result shape are left unstated, minor gaps given the schema documents the parameters fully.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the validate_type use case ("validate a specific type name"), which reinforces intent, but adds nothing about the detail parameter beyond what the schema already documents in detail.

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 ("Retrieve") and resource ("all valid ADT object types") and enumerates concrete type codes, plus a second mode (validate a type name). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like GetLocalTypes, GetTypeInfo, or GetObjectInfo, so an agent must infer which type-lookup tool applies.

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?

The two modes (list all vs. pass validate_type to validate one name) are implied by the phrasing, and the batch-mode note explains how to consume results inside a batch. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of guidance versus GetLocalTypes/GetTypeInfo, which is exactly the choice an agent faces here.

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