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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetInterfaceVersionDiff

Compare two ABAP interface versions from version history to return a unified diff of their sources, simplifying change review.

Instructions

[read-only] Compares the two ABAP interface versions named by content_uri_from and content_uri_to, entries of its version history: answers the unified diff of their sources. 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": {
      "content_uri_from": "<content_uri_from>",
      "content_uri_to": "<content_uri_to>"
    },
    "name": "GetInterfaceVersionDiff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
content_uri_toYesOpaque content_uri of the NEW/compare version, from the ABAP interface's version history.
content_uri_fromYesOpaque content_uri of the OLD/base version, from the ABAP interface's version history.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv20.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / content_uri_from / description
      Previous value: -"Opaque content_uri of the OLD/base version (from a GetInterfaceVersions entry)."New value: +"Opaque content_uri of the OLD/base version, from the ABAP interface's version history."
    • changedInput schema / properties / content_uri_to / description
      Previous value: -"Opaque content_uri of the NEW/compare version (from a GetInterfaceVersions entry)."New value: +"Opaque content_uri of the NEW/compare version, from the ABAP interface's version history."
  2. Addedv8.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior and, more valuably, discloses the non-obvious batch-mode semantics (call is recorded, returns empty content, answer retrieved by number after the batch). It omits error behavior for stale or mismatched content_uris and any permission notes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return form, then the batch caveat. The first sentence is a somewhat dense run-on with colon-chained clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return value explicitly (unified diff) and covering the batch-mode return path. For a two-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already spells out OLD/base vs NEW/compare roles. The description restates that these are entries of the version history, matching but not exceeding 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.

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (compares) plus resource (two ABAP interface versions) and names the exact inputs and output form (unified diff of sources). This clearly separates it from GetInterfaceVersionSource (single source fetch) and GetInterfaceVersions (history listing).

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 description implies the prerequisite that both content_uris come from the interface's version history, but never states when to prefer this over GetObjectVersionDiff or the single-version source tool, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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