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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description fails to adequately inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. This meets the criteria for high conciseness and structure.

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 of retrieving revisions (which may involve historical data or versioning), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'revisions' returns (e.g., list of changes, timestamps, authors) or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 both parameters ('objectUrl' and optional 'clsInclude'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema already handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 states the action ('retrieves') and target ('revisions for an object'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'revisions' entails (e.g., version history, change logs) and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'getObjectSource' or 'objectStructure', which might also retrieve object-related data. This makes the purpose somewhat vague.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after object creation or modification), or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'getObjectSource', 'objectTypes'), this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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