Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetObjectVersions

List the version history of an ABAP object, including author, timestamp, transport request, and a URI to fetch each version's source.

Instructions

[read-only] List the version history of an ABAP object. Returns each version with its versionId, author, updatedAt, title, the transportRequest (and transportDescription) that produced it when available, and an opaque content_uri to fetch that version source via GetObjectVersionSource.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

A3.8/5.0
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 behavioral burden and does state '[read-only]', covering the safety profile. It also discloses the return shape in detail, including that transportRequest/transportDescription are 'when available' and that content_uri is opaque and consumed by GetObjectVersionSource. It omits any statement about version limits, ordering, or pagination.

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 the scope marker '[read-only]' and the core action, then a compact enumeration of return fields with the chaining target. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and the follow-on tool. It is nearly complete for calling the tool, though it does not state whether results are bounded/paginated or sorted, which an agent listing a long history might need.

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 all three parameters (object_name, object_type enum, function_group_name with its function_module conditional) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) plus resource (version history of an ABAP object) and enumerates the returned fields (versionId, author, updatedAt, title, transportRequest, content_uri). It names GetObjectVersionSource as the follow-on tool, but does not distinguish itself from the type-specific siblings (GetClassVersions, GetTableVersions, GetInterfaceVersions), leaving the agent to infer which version-list tool applies.

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?

The description implies usage by describing the returned content_uri as the hand-off to GetObjectVersionSource for fetching source, which is helpful chaining context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions the existence of the per-type version tools an agent might otherwise pick.

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