Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetUnitTestResult

Retrieve results for an ABAP Unit test run by run_id, waiting within a bound for runs that were still in progress.

Instructions

Get the result of an ABAP Unit test run by its run_id, for a run that had not finished when it was started. Waits for it within a bound.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNoHow much of the answer to return: "terse" (default, the fields you need to act), "full" (the whole parse), "raw" (the document as ADT sent it).terse
run_idYesRun id a unit test run answered.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "terse",
+  "description": "How much of the answer to return: \"terse\" (default, the fields you need to act), \"full\" (the whole parse), \"raw\" (the document as ADT sent it).",
+  "enum": [
+    "terse",
+    "full",
+    "raw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / format
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Result format: abapunit or junit.",
-  "enum": [
-    "abapunit",
-    "junit"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / run_id / description
      Previous value: -"Run identifier returned by unit test run."New value: +"Run id a unit test run answered."
    • removedInput schema / properties / with_navigation_uris
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": false,
-  "description": "Include navigation URIs in result if supported.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key trait that the call blocks 'within a bound' while waiting for an unfinished run, but says nothing about timeout/error behavior or what happens if the run never completes.

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 tight sentences with the primary purpose and the blocking behavior front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It could be slightly more compact but is efficiently structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a Get tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers when and how to call but does not describe return content or the meaning of the detail levels beyond what the schema states, leaving a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the detail enum is fully documented in-schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (ABAP Unit test run result) keyed on run_id, and distinguishes itself from the run-creation siblings by scoping to 'a run that had not finished when it was started.' It is clear but does not name a sibling alternative to fully disambiguate from RunUnitTest.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It supplies a clear context condition for use ('for a run that had not finished when it was started'), telling the agent this is the retrieval/polling counterpart to running a test. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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