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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetObjectVersionSource

Reads the source code of a specific ABAP object version using its content_uri and object type from the version history.

Instructions

[read-only] Reads the source code of the object version named by content_uri, an entry of an object's version history, for the object type named by object_type. 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": {
      "object_type": "<object_type>",
      "content_uri": "<content_uri>"
    },
    "name": "GetObjectVersionSource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
content_uriYesOpaque content_uri of a version, from the object's version history.
object_typeYesObject type (the same value the version history was read with).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv20.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / content_uri / description
      Previous value: -"Opaque content_uri taken from a GetObjectVersions version entry."New value: +"Opaque content_uri of a version, from the object's version history."
    • changedInput schema / properties / object_type / description
      Previous value: -"Object type (same value used in GetObjectVersions)."New value: +"Object type (the same value the version history was read with)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv8.12.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / object_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "class",
-  "program",
-  "interface",
-  "function_group",
-  "function_module",
-  "table",
-  "structure",
-  "ddl",
-  "domain",
-  "data_element",
-  "package",
-  "behavior_definition",
-  "metadata_extension"
-]New value: +[
+  "class",
+  "program",
+  "interface",
+  "function_module",
+  "table",
+  "structure",
+  "ddl",
+  "behavior_definition",
+  "metadata_extension"
+]
  3. Addedv8.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well: it flags [read-only] and discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait — in batch mode the call is recorded by number and returns empty content, later retrieved by number. It does not cover permissions or failure behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the read-only tag and the core operation. The batch-mode sentence is terse and slightly cryptic ('under the next number') but earns its place by covering a key side effect.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 states it answers with source content, which is adequate. But it omits error behavior (invalid or stale content_uri), version/type mismatch handling, and any when-to-use context relative to siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters, so the description needn't restate them. It adds only light framing ('an entry of an object's version history'), keeping this at the baseline 3.

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+resource: reads the source code of an object version identified by content_uri and object_type. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many per-type siblings like GetClassVersionSource or GetProgramVersionSource, which read the same thing for one specific object type.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the sibling Get*VersionSource tools for class, program, interface, table, etc. The agent is left to infer the distinction between this and the type-specific readers.

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