ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves a list,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'ATC users' specifically refers to (e.g., vs. general system users). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'systemUsers'), it lacks context about what 'ATC users' entails and behavioral details, leaving room for confusion in a complex server environment.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering or options are required, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of ATC users'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'systemUsers' or 'atcContactUri', which might retrieve related user information, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'systemUsers' and 'atcContactUri' that might handle user-related data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.