Retrieve an ABAP metadata extension definition and read the active or inactive version for SAP development.
Retrieve ABAP metadata extension 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 |
| metadata_extension_name | Yes | MetadataExtension name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / metadata_extension_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"MetadataExtension name (e.g., Z_MY_METADATAEXTENSION)."New value: +"MetadataExtension name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and discloses the active/inactive version capability, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the object is missing, or what the returned definition contains.
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 verb and resource, then the version capability. No filler or redundancy.
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 this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description could say more about what a metadata extension definition looks like on return, leaving a clear gap.
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%, and the schema already documents both the enum values and their meanings ('active' for deployed, 'inactive' for modified but not activated). The description's mention of active/inactive merely repeats this, 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 and resource: 'Retrieve ABAP metadata extension definition.' It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling GetMetadataExtensionVersionSource, so it stops 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?
The description notes it supports reading active or inactive versions, which implies the usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like GetMetadataExtensionVersions, GetMetadataExtensionVersionSource, or GetMetadataExtensionVersionDiff.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.