Retrieve an ABAP interface definition from SAP systems, with support for reading either the active or inactive version.
Retrieve ABAP interface 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 |
| interface_name | Yes | Interface name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / interface_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Interface name (e.g., Z_MY_INTERFACE)."New value: +"Interface name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permission/authorization requirements, no statement of what happens if the interface does not exist, and no note on return behavior. 'Supports reading active or inactive version' merely echoes the schema enum, adding no behavioral context.
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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is largely redundant with 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 with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotations and a crowded sibling set, it omits any distinction from the version/diff tools and any behavioral notes, leaving gaps an agent must infer.
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 parameters (interface_name and version, including the enum values) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's version sentence duplicates that information rather than adding format, casing, or naming-convention details.
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 interface definition), so the operation is unambiguous. It implies a read of the current interface but never explicitly distinguishes itself from the many version-oriented siblings (GetInterfaceVersions, GetInterfaceVersionSource, GetInterfaceVersionDiff) or from CheckInterface/DeleteInterface.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tools named. The clause about active/inactive versions is a capability statement restated from the schema rather than routing guidance, and it does not tell the agent when to prefer a version-history sibling instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.