Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateFunctionGroup

Updates the description metadata of an existing ABAP function group. Manages locking to safely apply changes without source code edits.

Instructions

Update metadata (description) of an existing ABAP function group. Function groups are containers for function modules and don't have source code to update directly. Uses stateful session with proper lock/unlock mechanism.

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
descriptionYesNew description for the function group.
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Optional if object is local or already in transport.
function_group_nameYesFunction group name. Must exist in the system.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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 / function_group_name / description
      Previous value: -"Function group name (e.g., ZTEST_FG_001). Must exist in the system."New value: +"Function group name. Must exist in the system."
    • 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

A3.5/5.0
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, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: a stateful session with a lock/unlock mechanism, plus the fact that only metadata (not source) can change. It stops short of stating permissions/auth needs, whether the change is reversible, or whether activation follows.

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 action and scope, then the container clarification and session behavior. Every sentence adds something; minor room to be tighter on the final clause.

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 simple metadata mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope limitation, and session/locking behavior adequately. Gaps remain around return value and post-update activation expectations, but for a 4-param tool this is close to sufficient.

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 all four parameters (including enum'd 'detail' and transport_request) are already documented in the schema; the description adds only the framing that the update targets the description field. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Update metadata (description) of an existing ABAP function group') and correctly scopes it to metadata only, explicitly noting function groups have no source code. This implicitly separates it from UpdateFunctionModule/UpdateFunctionInclude, but it never names a sibling outright.

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: the clarification that function groups 'don't have source code to update directly' hints at when this tool (vs. module/include updates) applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing, nor prerequisites such as needing activation afterward.

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