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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetLocalTestClass

Reads the local test classes of a specified ABAP class and returns their source code for the active or inactive version. Use it to inspect existing test coverage before editing or extending tests.

Instructions

[read-only] Reads the local test classes include of the ABAP class named by class_name, active or inactive version. Returns { class_name, version, part: 'source', source }. 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": {
      "class_name": "<class_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetLocalTestClass"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoVersion to read: "active" (default) for the deployed version, "inactive" for the modified version awaiting activation.active
class_nameYesParent class name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv20.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Previous value: -"Version to read: \"active\" (default) for deployed version, \"inactive\" for modified but not activated version."New value: +"Version to read: \"active\" (default) for the deployed version, \"inactive\" for the modified version awaiting activation."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Parent class name (e.g., ZCL_MY_CLASS)."New value: +"Parent class name."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it tags the tool [read-only], describes the return shape, and discloses the non-obvious batch-mode behavior where calls are recorded and return empty content read back by number. It stops short of noting prerequisites like class existence or error behavior, but this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core operation and return shape before the batch caveat, and every sentence carries information. The batch-mode sentence is dense but conveys genuinely non-obvious behavior, so it earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the return shape inline and covers the batch edge case. It lacks detail on error conditions or what 'part: source' implies, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the version enum already documents active vs inactive. The description restates the active/inactive choice and confirms class_name identifies the parent class, adding little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Reads) and a specific resource (the local test classes include of the ABAP class named by class_name), scoped by active/inactive version. The resource is specific enough to distinguish it from nearby siblings like GetLocalTypes, GetLocalDefinitions, and GetLocalMacros.

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 clarifies the active vs inactive version choice and explains batch-mode behavior, which implies usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over GetClass, GetInclude, or GetLocalTypes, nor does it state any exclusions; usage is implied rather than guided.

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