Retrieve an ABAP service definition from SAP systems, reading either the active deployed version or the inactive modified version.
Retrieve ABAP service definition definition. Supports reading active or inactive version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version to read: "active" (default) for deployed version, "inactive" for modified but not activated version. | active |
| service_definition_name | Yes | ServiceDefinition name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / service_definition_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"ServiceDefinition name (e.g., Z_MY_SERVICEDEFINITION)."New value: +"ServiceDefinition name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions needed, what happens when the name does not exist, or what the returned payload looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with the resource named first and the version note second. The only blemish is the redundant 'definition definition'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter getter with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource and the version axis. It stops at minimum viable because error behavior and typical usage context are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the version enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes the active/inactive distinction without adding format or defaulting detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (ABAP service definition), and the companion Create/Update/Delete/ActivateServiceDefinition siblings make the read scope obvious. The phrasing 'service definition definition' is redundant, and it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only states that active or inactive versions are supported, which is a capability rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over GetObjectVersionSource, GetServiceBinding, or the version-diff siblings, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.