Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateServiceDefinition

Update source code of an existing ABAP service definition. Locks, updates, unlocks, and optionally activates.

Instructions

Update source code of an existing ABAP service definition. Locks, updates, unlocks, and optionally activates.

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 service definition after update. Default: true.
source_codeYesComplete service definition source code.
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Optional if object is local or already in transport.
service_definition_nameYesService definition 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 / service_definition_name / description
      Previous value: -"Service definition name (e.g., ZSD_MY_SERVICE). Must exist in the system."New value: +"Service definition 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

A4/5.0
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 meaningful work: it discloses the lock/update/unlock sequence and that activation is optional, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It still omits transport/permission implications for an object-mutating write.

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 verb and target, with the lock/activate behavior as a compact second clause. Zero waste.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus the fully documented schema cover the essentials. It could note that the return content is governed by the 'detail' parameter or mention transport handling, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 (including the enum 'detail' and 'activate' default true) are already documented. The description's 'optionally activates' echoes the activate parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (Update) and resource (existing ABAP service definition) plus scope ('source code of an existing'). An agent can distinguish this from CreateServiceDefinition, DeleteServiceDefinition, GetServiceDefinition, and ActivateServiceDefinition without opening any schema.

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 word 'existing' implies the object must already be present, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., when to call ActivateServiceDefinition separately instead) and no prerequisites or 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