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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('publishes') without explaining what publishing entails—e.g., whether it makes the binding publicly available, requires specific permissions, is reversible, has side effects, or involves rate limits. This lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of critical operational risks.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—a single sentence that fails to convey necessary information. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks front-loaded critical details and does not earn its place by adding value, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (likely a mutation affecting system state), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address what happens after publishing, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely or effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'name' and 'version' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Publishes a service binding' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'publishServiceBinding' without specifying what 'publish' means in this context or what a 'service binding' is. It fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unPublishServiceBinding', leaving the purpose vague and unhelpful for an AI agent.

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, such as its sibling 'unPublishServiceBinding' or other related tools like 'createObject' or 'activateObjects'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it misleadingly simplistic for a tool that likely involves system changes.

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