Retrieve ABAP table definitions from SAP systems. Read the active or inactive version by providing the table name and optional version.
Retrieve ABAP table 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 |
| table_name | Yes | Table name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Input schema / properties / table_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Table name (e.g., Z_MY_TABLE)."New value: +"Table name."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and the version support is useful, but it omits auth requirements, error behavior, and what the returned definition contains. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the version-support detail. Appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Given the low complexity, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and version handling. It could clarify the return format or relation to sibling tools, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of active/inactive versions repeats what the enum and its description already provide, adding no new semantic 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 (Retrieve) and resource (ABAP table definition), clearly distinguishing it from GetTableContents and GetStructure by scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast them, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point to alternatives like GetTableContents or GetStructure. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.