Retrieve an ABAP function group definition from an SAP system, selecting active or inactive version, to inspect its structure.
Retrieve ABAP function group 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 |
| function_group_name | Yes | FunctionGroup name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / function_group_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"FunctionGroup name (e.g., Z_MY_FUNCTIONGROUP)."New value: +"FunctionGroup name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that the tool reads the definition and which versions exist. It says nothing about permissions, whether inactive reads require special state, or the shape/size of what is returned. 'Retrieve' implies a non-destructive read, but that is inference, not disclosure.
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 filler; the core action leads and the version capability follows. Every clause carries information and nothing is 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 fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no insight into the returned definition's structure or any behavioral constraints, leaving a modest gap for a tool with zero structured behavioral coverage.
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 both function_group_name and the version enum are already documented in the schema, including the active/inactive semantics and default. The description restates the version capability but adds no format, naming-convention, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve ABAP function group definition.' That clearly separates it from siblings like GetFunctionModule, ListFunctionGroupIncludes, DeleteFunctionGroup, and CheckFunctionGroup without ambiguity about which object type it targets. It stops short of an explicit comparative statement against those siblings, so it lands just under 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' tells the agent the tool exposes version state, but it offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer GetFunctionModule or ListFunctionGroupIncludes instead). Usage is only implied by the read nature of the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.