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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetServiceBinding

Reads an OData service binding's source code or ADT metadata (package, responsible, description) in XML, JSON, or plain text for inspection and batch recording.

Instructions

[read-only] Reads the OData service binding named by service_binding_name in one request: its binding document (part "source", the default) or its ADT metadata document (part "metadata": package, responsible, description), each in the response_format given. Returns the part read. 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": {
      "service_binding_name": "<service_binding_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetServiceBinding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partNoThe document to read: "source" (default) the source code, "metadata" the ADT metadata document (package, responsible, description, ...).source
response_formatNoPreferred response format. "json" requests JSON from endpoint, "xml" parses XML payload, "plain" returns raw text.xml
service_binding_nameYesService binding name. Case-insensitive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv20.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / part
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "source",
+  "description": "The document to read: \"source\" (default) the source code, \"metadata\" the ADT metadata document (package, responsible, description, ...).",
+  "enum": [
+    "source",
+    "metadata"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / service_binding_name / description
      Previous value: -"Service binding name (for example: ZUI_MY_BINDING). Case-insensitive."New value: +"Service binding name. Case-insensitive."
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it self-declares read-only, notes the call happens "in one request", states the return value is the part read, and — most valuably — discloses non-obvious batch semantics (recorded under the next number, empty content returned, answer retrieved by number after BatchEnd). Missing: error behavior for a nonexistent binding and any permission/lock considerations.

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?

Single dense paragraph with the primary action and the read-only marker front-loaded, and the batch caveat deferred to the end where it belongs. Slightly overloaded with nested parentheticals, but no sentence is 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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is read, which document variant, the response format, and the batch-mode protocol. The only real gap is that it does not sketch the shape of the returned document beyond naming a few metadata fields.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description restates part and response_format semantics but adds no format/syntax detail (e.g., expected casing, what "plain" yields for a metadata part) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — reads the OData service binding named by service_binding_name — and enumerates the two documents it can return (binding source vs ADT metadata). It is distinguishable from Delete/Update/CreateServiceBinding siblings by the read framing, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closest read sibling, GetServiceBindingPreviewUrl.

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 rather than stated: you call it to fetch a binding document and choose a part. There is no explicit "use this when / use X instead" guidance, and no mention of when the metadata part is preferable to source, nor when GetServiceBindingPreviewUrl or GetServiceDefinition would be the better choice.

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