ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not detail aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the retrieved data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Retrieves syntax check types.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient. While it could be more informative, it achieves conciseness without unnecessary elaboration, earning a high score for 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves data. It does not explain what 'syntax check types' are, the return format, or any behavioral traits. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure proper usage and understanding.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here. However, it could have optionally clarified that no inputs are required, but this omission does not significantly impact usability, warranting a baseline score of 4.

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 'Retrieves syntax check types' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('syntax check types'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'syntax check types' entails (e.g., categories, formats, or contexts) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl', leaving room for ambiguity.

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, contexts, or exclusions, and it fails to reference related tools such as 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl', which could help in decision-making. This lack of direction may lead to misuse or confusion.

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