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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetTable

Reads an ABAP database table’s definition, fields, source code, or ADT metadata in a single request, supporting active or inactive versions and batch-mode recording.

Instructions

[read-only] Reads the ABAP database table named by table_name in one request: its definition with its fields, as source code (part "source", the default; active or inactive version) or its ADT metadata document (part "metadata": package, responsible, description). 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": {
      "table_name": "<table_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetTable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partNoThe document to read: "source" (default) the source code, "metadata" the ADT metadata document (package, responsible, description, ...).source
versionNoVersion of the source: "active" (default) for the deployed version, "inactive" for the modified version awaiting activation.active
table_nameYesTable name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Previous value: -"Version to read: \"active\" (default) for deployed version, \"inactive\" for modified but not activated version."New value: +"Version of the source: \"active\" (default) for the deployed version, \"inactive\" for the modified version awaiting activation."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / table_name / description
      Previous value: -"Table name (e.g., Z_MY_TABLE)."New value: +"Table name."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it declares the operation read-only, states that it returns only the part read, and discloses the non-obvious batch-mode contract (recorded under the next number, empty content returned, answer retrieved by number afterward). It omits failure behavior (nonexistent table, authorization) but the key traits an agent must know are present.

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?

One front-loaded paragraph: the operation and its scope come first, then mode semantics, then the batch caveat. Some clauses repeat parameter documentation verbatim, but the batch-mode sentence, though long, is genuinely load-bearing information.

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-only tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: it says what is returned and how batch semantics work. Minor gaps remain around error/permission behavior and large-table limits, but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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% and both enums are already documented with defaults and meanings, so the description is essentially restating structured data. The added gloss ('package, responsible, description') duplicates the schema's own text rather than extending it. 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Reads the ABAP database table named by table_name', and it pins down the returned artifact (definition with fields, source code, or ADT metadata document). It implicitly separates itself from content-reading siblings like GetTableContents by emphasizing 'definition', but never names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description explains what each 'part' and 'version' mode yields, which implies when to pick source vs metadata and active vs inactive. It gives no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no pointer to sibling tools such as GetTableContents, GetTableVersionSource, or CheckTable.

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