Release ABAP transport requests to move development objects between systems, with options to bypass locks and ATC checks when needed.
Releases a transport.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transportNumber | Yes | The transport number. | |
| ignoreLocks | No | Whether to ignore locks. | |
| IgnoreATC | No | Whether to ignore ATC checks. |
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Releases a transport' and does not mention effects, side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits, making it completely transparent about the operation's implications.
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 sentence and extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this brevity does not serve the agent well; it lacks critical information.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a very terse description. It fails to provide essential context such as when to use it, what side effects occur, or what the return value is, making it completely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (transportNumber, IgnoreATC, ignoreLocks), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters fully.
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 'Releases a transport' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action on a transport. However, it lacks context about what 'release' entails and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like transportDelete or transportSetOwner, though 'release' is distinct enough.
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 only states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.