Run ABAP Unit tests for a CDS view and get results to validate its behavior.
Run the ABAP Unit tests of a CDS view and return the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | 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). | terse |
| class_name | Yes | Test class of the CDS view. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v16.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the test class must be active, whether the operation has side effects, whether failures produce errors or a partial result, or any auth/rate constraints. 'Return the result' is the only behavioral claim.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb+resource first and the outcome second. No filler; every word earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should describe the shape of the returned result (pass/fail counts, messages, raw ADT document) and it does not. For a test-runner tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves key invocation-time context missing.
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% and both parameters (class_name, detail) are fully documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing on parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do the work.
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 (Run) and resource (ABAP Unit tests of a CDS view), and the qualifier 'of a CDS view' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling runners RunUnitTest, RunFunctionGroupUnitTest, and RunFunctionModuleUnitTest. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is implied (use this to run tests for CDS views) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling runners. The agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.