Retrieve ABAP data element definitions, including active or inactive versions, to understand data types and fields in SAP systems.
Retrieve ABAP data element 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 |
| data_element_name | Yes | Data element name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / data_element_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Data element name (e.g., Z_MY_DATA_ELEMENT)."New value: +"Data element 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. It discloses only the active/inactive version capability, which merely restates the schema's version parameter, and says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, error behavior, or what the definition response contains.
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, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple getter, though brief enough that it under-delivers on context rather than being padded.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate, but the absence of any annotations or safety/behavioral detail leaves gaps an agent must fill by inference.
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% and the version enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 data element definition") that clearly matches the tool name and distinguishes it from the Create/Update/Delete/Check/Activate DataElement siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so no credit for routing, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
"Supports reading active or inactive version" implies a use case (fetching either version state) but gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing among the many Get/Check/Activate siblings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.