Retrieve ABAP class source code from SAP systems, choosing the active deployed version or the inactive modified version.
Retrieve ABAP class source code. 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 |
| class_name | Yes | Class name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / class_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Class name (e.g., ZCL_MY_CLASS)."New value: +"Class name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Retrieve" signals a non-mutating read, and the active/inactive note clarifies that both states are readable, but there is no disclosure of error behavior (e.g., class not found), permission requirements, or result size limits. Minimum-viable rather than strong.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the version qualifier. Every clause earns its place.
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 read getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is routing context (when to prefer GetClassVersions/GetClassVersionSource), which would make it self-sufficient in this large sibling namespace.
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% – both class_name and the version enum (with default and active/inactive semantics) are fully documented in the schema. The description's version sentence merely restates this, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: "Retrieve ABAP class source code." This is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like CreateClass/UpdateClass and from analysis tools. However, it does not differentiate itself from version-oriented siblings such as GetClassVersions, GetClassVersionSource, or GetClassVersionDiff, which overlap in subject matter.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set (GetClassVersions, GetClassVersionSource, GetClassVersionDiff, GetLocalTestClass). The only contextual hint is the version parameter, which is already in the schema. The agent must infer that this fetches the current source rather than a historical version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.