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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetStructureVersions

List all versions of a given ABAP structure. Track the version ID, author, update date, and transport information for detailed change history.

Instructions

[read-only] Lists the version history of the ABAP structure named by structure_name: 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": {
      "structure_name": "<structure_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetStructureVersions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
structure_nameYesABAP structure name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv8.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it opens with '[read-only]', discloses the exact response fields (versionId, author, updatedAt, title, transportRequest/transportDescription, content_uri), and notes transport info is only present 'when available'. The batch/recordable behavior is a genuinely non-obvious trait that is disclosed, though its mechanics ('read by number after the batch ends') stay slightly cryptic.

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?

The core purpose and return shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the batch-mode caveat isolated afterward. The batch sentence is dense and jargon-heavy ('recorded under the next number and answers with empty content') but it conveys a real edge case rather than 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 and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and flagging the batch-mode special case. Remaining gaps are minor: version ordering, whether unpublished/inactive versions appear, and pagination or size limits are not addressed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('ABAP structure name'), so the schema already does the documentation work. The description only restates the parameter's role in framing the operation and adds no syntax, case-sensitivity, or naming-convention detail beyond it — 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 and resource — 'Lists the version history of the ABAP structure named by structure_name' — and enumerates the per-version fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with GetStructureVersionSource or GetStructureVersionDiff, which sit next to it in the sibling list, so it falls 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the word 'version history' and by the mention that content_uri is 'opaque' and names the source, which hints that a separate source tool exists for actual content. But no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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