Retrieve ABAP structure definitions and specify active or inactive versions to inspect deployed or modified code.
Retrieve ABAP structure 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 |
| structure_name | Yes | Structure name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / structure_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Structure name (e.g., Z_MY_STRUCTURE)."New value: +"Structure name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little: it implies a read but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what the returned definition contains. 'Supports reading active or inactive version' adds a minor capability note but is already covered by the schema.
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 no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the second sentence spends words on a capability the schema already documents.
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 read tool with fully described params this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about what is returned (full source, metadata) and whether inactive reads have any prerequisites.
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%, including a self-documenting enum for 'version' with default and meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's version sentence merely restates what the schema already explains in more detail.
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+resource ('Retrieve ABAP structure definition'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the plural sibling GetStructuresList and from Create/Update/DeleteStructure. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative for routing purposes, 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus adjacent siblings such as GetStructuresList, GetStructureVersions, or GetStructureVersionSource. The only conditional hint is 'Supports reading active or inactive version,' which is a capability statement rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.