Retrieve local types source code from an ABAP class, including implementations, and choose active or inactive version.
Retrieve local types source code from a class (implementations 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partly meets it: it discloses that implementations are included and that active/inactive versions are readable, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or return shape. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the name but leaves notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource; the version capability follows. Slight awkwardness in '(implementations include)' costs it a point but there is no wasted filler.
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 it is adequate, and no output schema means return values need not be described. Still, with no annotations the description should say more about the safety profile and what 'local types' means in this codebase to be fully self-sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, so class_name and version (with its active/inactive enum semantics) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'active or inactive version' merely echoes the schema, so 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 types source code from a class), which distinguishes it from siblings GetLocalDefinitions and GetLocalMacros by resource. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stays short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource name and the version option, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus GetLocalDefinitions/GetLocalMacros or the Update/Delete variants, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing the parent class to exist) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.