Retrieve the local definitions include source code from an ABAP class, choosing the active or inactive version.
Retrieve local definitions source code from a class (definitions include). 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 |
| class_name | Yes | Parent class name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / class_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Parent class name (e.g., ZCL_MY_CLASS)."New value: +"Parent class 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. "Retrieve" implies a read, and the active/inactive version note is useful, but there is no disclosure of error behavior (e.g., class not found), whether the result is empty when no local definitions exist, or any access requirements.
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. The orphaned "(definitions include)" fragment is a minor blemish that could be removed without loss.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the shape of the returned source (raw lines, structured sections, etc.) or what happens when the class has no local definitions. For a two-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the return.
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% — both class_name and the active/inactive version enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already states, 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?
States a specific verb ("Retrieve") and resource ("local definitions source code from a class"), which distinguishes it from siblings like GetLocalTypes and GetLocalMacros that fetch other local sections. The parenthetical "(definitions include)" is garbled and adds no clarifying value, but the core purpose is discernible.
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 guidance, no named alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to UpdateLocalDefinitions/DeleteLocalDefinitions rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.