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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateDomain

Updates an existing ABAP domain with supplied attributes, managing lock/unlock and optional activation to apply changes in SAP systems.

Instructions

Update an existing ABAP domain. Locks, updates with provided parameters (complete replacement), unlocks, and optionally activates. Runs outside batch mode.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain_name": "<domain_name>",
      "package_name": "<package_name>"
    },
    "name": "UpdateDomain"
  }
}

Input 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
lengthNoField length (max depends on datatype)
activateNoActivate domain after update (default: true)
datatypeNoData type: CHAR, NUMC, DATS, TIMS, DEC, INT1, INT2, INT4, INT8, CURR, QUAN, etc.
decimalsNoDecimal places (for DEC, CURR, QUAN types)
lowercaseNoAllow lowercase input
descriptionNoNew domain description (optional)
domain_nameYesDomain name to update
sign_existsNoField has sign (+/-)
value_tableNoValue table name for foreign key relationship
fixed_valuesNoArray of fixed values for domain value range
package_nameYesPackage name
conversion_exitNoConversion exit routine name (without CONVERSION_EXIT_ prefix)
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Required for transportable packages.

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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain_name / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name to update (e.g., ZZ_TEST_0001)"New value: +"Domain name to update"
    • changedInput schema / properties / package_name / description
      Previous value: -"Package name (e.g., ZOK_LOCAL, $TMP for local objects)"New value: +"Package name"
    • changedInput schema / properties / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"Transport request number (e.g., E19K905635). Required for transportable packages."New value: +"Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable packages."
  2. First observed

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 full burden and does real work: it discloses the lock/update/unlock sequence, that the update is a complete replacement rather than a merge, that activation is optional, and that it runs outside batch mode (relevant given the BatchBegin/BatchEnd siblings). It omits failure/rollback behavior and transport requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then behavior, then the batch-mode caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation's mechanics (lock, replace, unlock, activate, outside batch) well. Gaps remain on rollback on failure and on the transport_request requirement, though the schema documents that field.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the phrase 'with provided parameters (complete replacement)' adds meaning the schema does not: values omitted from the call are reset, not preserved. That is a substantive semantic gain beyond the per-field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing ABAP domain'), which clearly separates it from CreateDomain, DeleteDomain, and ActivateDomain in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of the top band.

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 rather than stated: 'existing' signals it is not for creation, and 'optionally activates' hints that ActivateDomain is unnecessary. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement of prerequisites such as the domain already existing or being unlocked.

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