Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetObjectInfo

Retrieves read-only ABAP object tree structures for packages, classes, programs, and function groups, with optional description and package enrichment.

Instructions

[read-only] Return ABAP object tree structure for packages (DEVC), classes (CLAS), programs (PROG), function groups (FUGR), and other objects. Shows root, group nodes, and terminal leaves up to maxDepth. Enrich each node with description and package via SearchObject if enrich=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enrichNo[read-only] Whether to add description and package via SearchObject (default true)
maxDepthNo[read-only] Maximum tree depth (default depends on type). Every object's own type folders and their contents are always shown (one tier); a higher value only descends further for PACKAGES, expanding nested subpackages that many tiers deep — no captured node-structure document shows a non-package object usefully recursable beyond its own type folders, so other object types are capped at one tier regardless of a higher value here.
parent_nameYes[read-only] Parent object name
parent_typeYes[read-only] Parent object type (e.g. DEVC/K, CLAS/OC, PROG/P)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / maxDepth / description
      Previous value: -"[read-only] Maximum tree depth (default depends on type)"New value: +"[read-only] Maximum tree depth (default depends on type). Every object's own type folders and their contents are always shown (one tier); a higher value only descends further for PACKAGES, expanding nested subpackages that many tiers deep — no captured node-structure document shows a non-package object usefully recursable beyond its own type folders, so other object types are capped at one tier regardless of a higher value here."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: read-only intent, the enrich-via-SearchObject step, and the subtle rule that non-package types are capped at one tier while only PACKAGES recurse deeper regardless of maxDepth. It stops short of covering error behavior, permission requirements, or caching/performance characteristics.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with the depth/enrichment specifics. No filler or restatement of the name; the only mild compression cost is that the depth nuance is dense.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work: it names supported object types, the tree node categories returned, depth semantics, and the enrichment toggle. It would be stronger with a note on failure modes or when the tree may be empty/truncated, but nothing essential for calling it 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces enrich and maxDepth semantics ('up to maxDepth', 'if enrich=true') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, particularly for parent_type/parent_name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Return ABAP object tree structure') and names the concrete object types supported (DEVC, CLAS, PROG, FUGR). It also describes the tree shape (root, group nodes, terminal leaves), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like GetObjectStructure, GetPackageTree, or GetNodeStructureLow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, which is a real gap given the many overlapping structure/tree tools in the sibling list (GetObjectStructure, GetObjectStructureLow, GetPackageTree). The enrich flag is explained behaviorally but that is not usage guidance.

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