Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateMessageClass

Update a message class header, such as its description, without affecting individual messages.

Instructions

Update a message class header (e.g. its description). To add or change individual messages use CreateMessageClassMessage / UpdateMessageClassMessage.

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 short description for the message class.
transport_requestNo(optional) Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects.
message_class_nameYesMessage class name.

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 / message_class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Message class name (e.g., ZMY_MSGS)."New value: +"Message class name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / transport_request / description
      Previous value: -"(optional) Transport request number. Required for transportable objects."New value: +"(optional) Transport request number, not a task. Required for transportable objects."
  2. Addedv8.6.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this mutates a header; it says nothing about required permissions, object locking, activation afterwards, or whether the change is transportable/reversible, which matters for a write operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the sibling-routing note. No filler.

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?

With a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description only needs to cover purpose and routing, which it does. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the absence of any behavioral context (activation, locking, transport implications) leaves a real gap.

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 transport_request and detail) are already documented in the schema. The description's note about 'description' as an example field adds little beyond that, so the 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 a message class header') and clarifies scope with an example ('e.g. its description'). It explicitly disambiguates itself from the sibling message-level tools, so an agent can pick it apart from CreateMessageClassMessage/UpdateMessageClassMessage without reading schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear routing rule: use this for header-level updates, use CreateMessageClassMessage/UpdateMessageClassMessage for individual messages. No explicit prerequisites (e.g. lock/transport needs) are stated, but the when-not guidance is strong.

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