Retrieve the ABAP behavior implementation definition, reading either the active or inactive version.
Retrieve ABAP behavior implementation definition. Supports reading active or inactive version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version to read: "active" (default) for deployed version, "inactive" for modified but not activated version. | active |
| behavior_implementation_name | Yes | BehaviorImplementation name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / behavior_implementation_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"BehaviorImplementation name (e.g., Z_MY_BEHAVIORIMPLEMENTATION)."New value: +"BehaviorImplementation name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a retrieval operation and that active/inactive versions are supported, but it does not state permissions required, error behavior, side effects, or return characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence largely restates the schema's version parameter, which is minor redundancy but not enough to make the definition bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: it states purpose and version support. However, with no annotations, it lacks any behavioral detail about permissions, safety, or error handling, and it provides no sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters, including the active/inactive enum and default. The description repeats the version support but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP behavior implementation definition'), making the tool's basic function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from close siblings like GetBehaviorDefinition, so an agent must rely on the name alone for that distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading a behavior implementation and notes that both active and inactive versions are supported, which gives some context. But it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternative tools such as GetBehaviorDefinition or GetBehaviorDefinitionVersionSource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.