Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateBehaviorImplementation

Update the source code of an existing ABAP behavior implementation class, including lock, write, unlock, and optional activation. Provide class name, behavior definition, and implementation code.

Instructions

Update source code of an existing ABAP behavior implementation class. Updates the implementations include. Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation.

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
activateNoActivate behavior implementation after update. Default: true.
class_nameYesBehavior Implementation class name. Must exist in the system.
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Optional if object is local or already in transport.
behavior_definitionYesReferenced Behavior Definition name. Accepted for compatibility; not forwarded to the write — the shipped update() no longer reads it (it writes the implementations include only, never the FOR BEHAVIOR OF main source).
implementation_codeYesImplementation code for the implementations include. Contains the actual behavior implementation methods.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / behavior_definition / description
      Previous value: -"Behavior Definition name (e.g., ZI_MY_ENTITY). Must match the behavior definition used when creating the class."New value: +"Referenced Behavior Definition name. Accepted for compatibility; not forwarded to the write — the shipped update() no longer reads it (it writes the implementations include only, never the FOR BEHAVIOR OF main source)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Behavior Implementation class name (e.g., ZBP_MY_ENTITY). Must exist in the system."New value: +"Behavior Implementation class name. Must exist in the system."
    • 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"Transport request number (e.g., E19K905635). Optional if object is local or already in transport."New value: +"Transport request number, not a task. Optional if object is local or already in transport."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the schema by stating the tool "Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation" and that it always writes a single include. It still omits permission requirements, failure/rollback behavior, and what happens to pending edits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, with zero filler. Slightly terse in that the lifecycle sentence could name the activation default, but every sentence earns its place.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and transaction lifecycle but omits error conditions, transport/permission prerequisites, and what the caller receives back. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so each of the six parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Update source code of an existing ABAP behavior implementation class") and further narrows scope by naming the exact artifact written ("the implementations include"), which cleanly separates it from UpdateBehaviorDefinition and UpdateBehaviorImplementation siblings.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is for an existing behavior implementation class, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., object must be inactive/checked first), and no routing to alternatives such as CreateBehaviorImplementation or CheckBehaviorDefinition. It gives context but no exclusions.

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