Search for ABAP packages by type and name to find development objects within the ABAP system, enabling efficient package discovery for development workflows.
Performs a package search help.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | The package value help type. | |
| name | No | The package name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, return values, or any operational nuances. It is a bare statement with zero behavioral detail.
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?
While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains no useful information beyond the tool name, so the brevity does not serve a purpose.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line vacuous description, the tool is completely under-specified. There is no context about what 'package search help' means operationally, making the description inadequate for any non-trivial agent use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (name and type), so the schema already documents them adequately. The description adds no extra meaning, but per the baseline for high coverage, this is acceptable.
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 'Performs a package search help' is essentially a tautology, restating the tool name without adding any specificity about what the tool actually does. There is no distinction from sibling search tools like searchObject or findObjectPath.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling set with various search and help tools, the complete absence of usage context leaves the agent without any direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.