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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ListServiceBindingTypes

Lists available service binding types such as ODataV2 and ODataV4 from the ADT Business Services endpoint, returning XML, JSON, or a plain list of type names.

Instructions

[read-only] Lists the available service binding types (for example ODataV2/ODataV4) from the ADT Business Services endpoint, in the response_format given. 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

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ListServiceBindingTypes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
response_formatNoShape of the answer: the document as the server sent it, the same parsed, or a flat list of the type names.xml

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv16.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format / description
      Added value: +"Shape of the answer: the document as the server sent it, the same parsed, or a flat list of the type names."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only, names the endpoint, and discloses the important batch-mode trait (call recorded under the next number, returns empty content, answer read by number afterwards). It stops short of error/permission behavior, so not a 5.

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 purpose, followed by the batch caveat. The batch sentence is dense but every clause carries operational meaning; no 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?

For a single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape selection, and batch behavior adequately. Only error handling and a sample of the type-name output are missing.

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 response_format enum is fully documented in the schema; the description only echoes 'in the response_format given' without adding format semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (service binding types) with concrete examples (ODataV2/ODataV4) and names the source endpoint (ADT Business Services). No sibling tool enumerates binding types, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 narrow purpose and the batch-mode note explains one operating context, but it never states explicitly when to reach for this versus alternatives (e.g. GetServiceBinding for a single binding) or any prerequisites.

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