Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-abap-adt

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetInclude

Read any ABAP include source by name from anywhere in the repository, even when it resides outside a program tree.

Instructions

[read-only] Read ANY single ABAP include source by name, from anywhere in the repository (an include may live outside any single program tree). Reads includes (PROG/I) by name. Recordable: in batch mode a call is recorded under the next number and answers with empty content; its answer is read by number after the batch ends.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "include_name": "<include_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetInclude"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_nameYesName of the ABAP Include

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv9.0.0
  2. Removedv8.12.1
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and discharges most of it: it declares read-only in band, states the cross-repository scope, and discloses the non-obvious batch behavior where a recorded call 'answers with empty content' and must be re-read by number. It omits what happens on a missing/ambiguous include name and any authorization requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with the core capability and its scope front-loaded, followed by the batch caveat. The '[read-only]' bracket and parenthetical are slightly cluttered but each sentence contributes information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: it is a read, the name is repository-wide, and batch mode changes the return semantics in a way an agent would otherwise get wrong. Only failure behavior for an unknown include name is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single required parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds some meaning by establishing that the name is resolved repository-wide rather than relative to a program tree, which helps the agent construct a valid value, but it adds no naming conventions or case-sensitivity detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read ANY single ABAP include source by name', and adds the scoping fact that an include may live outside any single program tree, plus the PROG/I object types. This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like GetIncludesList, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with GetFunctionInclude, which is the closest source-reading sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The context of use is clear (you have an include name and want its source, regardless of which program owns it), and the batch-mode sentence tells the agent a call can be recorded instead of executed. However, no explicit when-not or alternative routing is given, so the agent must infer that listing should go to GetIncludesList rather than here.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools