Retrieve an ABAP domain definition from SAP systems, including active or inactive versions, to inspect field metadata and support development tasks.
Retrieve ABAP domain 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 |
| domain_name | Yes | Domain name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / domain_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Domain name (e.g., Z_MY_DOMAIN)."New value: +"Domain 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" implies a read-only operation and the version scope is disclosed, but there is no mention of error behavior, auth requirements, or what happens with a non-existent/inactive domain. Reasonable but thin for an un-annotated tool.
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, front-loaded sentences with no padding. Slightly weakened because the second sentence largely restates the version information already carried by the schema.
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 tool this is minimally viable, but with no annotations and no output schema the description gives no guidance on return shape, error cases, or interaction with the activate/check siblings. Adequate without being complete.
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 with its default and semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already states (active/inactive versions). 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 (Retrieve) and resource (ABAP domain definition), which cleanly distinguishes it from data-element/table/structure getters in the sibling list. However it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like CheckDomain or the version-diff getters, so it falls short of a 5.
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" hints at a usage choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or naming of alternatives such as CheckDomain or CreateDomain/UpdateDomain. The agent must infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.