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

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

UpdateTable

Updates DDL source code for an existing ABAP table, handling lock, modification, unlock, and optional activation outside batch mode.

Instructions

Update DDL source code of an existing ABAP table. Locks, updates, 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": {
      "table_name": "<table_name>",
      "ddl_code": "<ddl_code>"
    },
    "name": "UpdateTable"
  }
}

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
activateNoActivate table after source update. Default: true.
ddl_codeYesComplete DDL source code for table. Example: '@EndUserText.label : \'My Table\' @AbapCatalog.tableCategory : #TRANSPARENT define table ztst_table { key client : abap.clnt not null; key id : abap.char(10); name : abap.char(255); }'
table_nameYesTable name. Table must already exist.
transport_requestNoTransport request number, not a task. Optional if object is local or already in transport.

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 / table_name / description
      Previous value: -"Table name (e.g., ZZ_TEST_TABLE_001). Table must already exist."New value: +"Table name. Table must already exist."
    • 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

A3.6/5.0
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 disclose real behavior beyond the schema: the lock/update/unlock sequence (concurrency and lock contention matter to the caller) and the constraint that it runs outside batch mode. It stops short of saying what happens on failure (e.g., locks left held) or that it replaces the entire source.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the lock/batch constraints following immediately. Every sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits what the call returns (the detail enum implies a parse result is returned) and says nothing about transport requirements or failure behavior. Locking and batch-mode exclusion are covered, but the response contract is left entirely implicit.

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 ddl_code's full-source semantics, activate's default of true, transport_request, and detail — are already documented. The description only restates that activation is optional and adds no syntax or format guidance, so the 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 a precise resource (DDL source code of an existing ABAP table), which separates it from CreateTable and from UpdateDdl (CDS DDL) by naming the ABAP table as the target. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route away from, which is what a 5 would require.

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 context is implied rather than stated: 'existing ABAP table' conveys the precondition, and 'Runs outside batch mode' implicitly excludes use inside BatchBegin/BatchEnd. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, such as when to use this rather than CreateTable or UpdateDdl.

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