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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetObjectVersions

Lists the version history of an ABAP repository object, showing each version's author, update time, and transport request. Use it to trace when and why a class, program, table, or CDS view changed.

Instructions

[read-only] Lists the version history of the class, program, interface, function module, table, structure, CDS view, behavior definition or metadata extension named by object_name and object_type. Returns each version with its versionId, author, updatedAt, title, the transportRequest (and transportDescription) that produced it when available, and the opaque content_uri that names the version's 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": {
      "object_type": "<object_type>",
      "object_name": "<object_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetObjectVersions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_nameYesObject name.
object_typeYesObject type.
function_group_nameNoOwning function group name. Required when object_type is function_module.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / object_name / description
      Previous value: -"Object name (e.g., ZCL_MY_CLASS, ZIF_MY_INTERFACE, Z_MY_TABLE)."New value: +"Object name."
  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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it marks the tool read-only, enumerates the returned fields (versionId, author, updatedAt, title, transportRequest/transportDescription, content_uri) and explains what content_uri is. The batch-recording behavior (empty content during batch, read by number afterwards) is a genuinely useful non-obvious trait. It stops short of pagination/ordering or behavior for objects with no version history.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return contents, then a compact batch-behavior note. The dense enumeration of object types is justified because it defines scope; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields, plus batch semantics and read-only status. What remains unaddressed — ordering, pagination, empty-history behavior — is modest for a read-only listing tool.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, and the description adds only that the version history is keyed by object_name and object_type. It does not clarify the conditional requirement of function_group_name for function_module objects, which is the one parameter whose semantics could trip up a caller.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('version history') and enumerates the exact object types covered, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It is a generic cross-type version lister and its scope is legible against the many per-type siblings (GetClassVersions, GetProgramVersions), even without naming them.

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?

Usage is implied through the object_type enum and the phrase 'named by object_name and object_type', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over the per-type siblings (GetClassVersions, GetTableVersions, etc.), and no stated preconditions. The batch-mode note is operational, not selection 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