Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateLocalTypes

Modify local types definitions in an ABAP class, managing lock, update, unlock, and optional activation of the parent class.

Instructions

Update local types definitions in an ABAP class. Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation of parent class.

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
class_nameYesParent class name.
local_types_codeYesUpdated source code for local types.
transport_requestNoTransport request number (required for transportable objects), not a task.
activate_on_updateNoActivate parent class after updating local types. Default: false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv16.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / activate_on_update / description
      Previous value: -"Activate parent class after updating. Default: false"New value: +"Activate parent class after updating local types. Default: false"
    • changedInput schema / properties / class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Parent class name (e.g., ZCL_MY_CLASS)."New value: +"Parent class name."
    • 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."New value: +"Transport request number (required for transportable objects), not a task."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the lock/update/unlock lifecycle and optional parent-class activation, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits error/failure behavior, permission requirements, and reversibility, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the lifecycle detail. Efficient, though it could have used the space to add param or usage guidance.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation and its lock/activation lifecycle but leaves transport_request, the detail response option, and failure handling unexplained. Adequate but incomplete.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum and the activate_on_update flag. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (local types definitions in an ABAP class), which is clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like UpdateLocalDefinitions and UpdateLocalMacros by naming 'local types', though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

The description implies usage (updating an existing local types definition) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives such as UpdateLocalDefinitions for a different include type. Usage is only inferable.

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