Skip to main content
Glama
fr0ster

mcp-abap-adt

by fr0ster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ValidateServiceBinding

Validate service binding parameters (name, service definition, package, version) via ADT to catch errors before deployment.

Instructions

Validate service binding parameters (name, service definition, package, version) via ADT validation endpoint.

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
descriptionNoOptional description used during validation.
package_nameNoABAP package for the binding.
service_binding_nameYesService binding name to validate.
service_binding_versionNoService binding version (for example: 1.0). Accepted for backward compatibility; the transport check this now runs does not read it.
service_definition_nameYesService definition linked to binding. Accepted for backward compatibility; the transport check this now runs does not read it.

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_binding_version / description
      Previous value: -"Service binding version (for example: 1.0)."New value: +"Service binding version (for example: 1.0). Accepted for backward compatibility; the transport check this now runs does not read it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / service_definition_name / description
      Previous value: -"Service definition linked to binding."New value: +"Service definition linked to binding. Accepted for backward compatibility; the transport check this now runs does not read it."
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it mutates state, what permissions it needs, or what a failed validation looks like. It only discloses the mechanism ('via ADT validation endpoint'), which is not enough to predict behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves behavioral questions unanswered rather than over-explaining.

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 six-parameter validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the return shape or the validation outcome, and it does not. The purpose is covered, but the agent lacks guidance on results and on interaction with the create/activate workflow.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including the backward-compatibility caveats for version and definition name. The description merely lists four of them without adding syntax, format, or interaction detail, so it earns only the baseline.

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 (Validate) and resource (service binding) and enumerates the parameters being validated, which cleanly separates it from the Get/Create/Update/Delete/Activate service-binding siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead in what situation, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of how this relates to CreateServiceBinding or ActivateServiceBinding. An agent must infer that validation is a pre-flight step rather than a mutation.

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