Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetStructuresList

Recursively list structures embedded in an ABAP structure, including .INCLUDE and append extensions, as a tree. Read-only; skips where-used lookups if disabled.

Instructions

[read-only] Recursively list the structures embedded in an ABAP structure (.INCLUDE / append), as a tree. Refused outright on legacy systems (BASIS < 7.50): AdtClientLegacy.getStructure()/getTable() both throw — the DDIC structure/table endpoints this needs are not present there (issue #207).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNo[read-only] Timeout in ms for each ADT request.
versionNoVersion to read: "active" (default) or "inactive".active
structure_nameYesStructure name.
include_extensionsNo[read-only] Also find extension (append) structures via where-used (objects that `extend type <this> with …`). Default true. Set false to skip the (slower) where-used lookups and return includes only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / structure_name / description
      Previous value: -"Structure name (e.g., Z_MY_STRUCTURE)."New value: +"Structure name."
  2. Addedv7.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it is read-only, output is a recursive tree, and it hard-fails on legacy systems with a concrete justification (missing DDIC endpoints, issue #207). Gaps remain around permissions/return shape, but the failure-mode disclosure is well above average for an annotated-bare tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action; the legacy-system constraint follows the purpose cleanly. The parenthetical method names and issue reference are mildly verbose but earn their place as a real limitation.

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 read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, structural scope, and a blocking environmental constraint. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing, though when-to-prefer-it guidance would round it out.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (timeout, version, structure_name, include_extensions). The description reinforces the append/include concept but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema. 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: recursively list the structures embedded in an ABAP structure, returned as a tree, with .INCLUDE / append noted. This distinguishes it conceptually from GetStructure (which fetches the structure itself), but it never names a sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It gives one important eligibility constraint (refused on BASIS < 7.50), but offers no guidance on when to reach for this versus GetStructure, GetIncludesList, or GetObjectStructure. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not spelled out.

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