Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP ABAP ADT

MCP ABAP ADT

by mario-andreschak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetInterface

Retrieve ABAP interface source code from SAP systems to analyze or implement development artifacts.

Instructions

Retrieve ABAP interface source code

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "interface_name": "<interface_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetInterface"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
interface_nameYesName of the ABAP interface

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. Only states retrieval, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or output constraints. Insufficient for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise single sentence, no unnecessary words. Lacks structural elements like bullet points, but efficiency earns a high score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or annotations; description fails to explain return format, prerequisites, or how it differs from 12 siblings. Incomplete for a tool in this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single required parameter (interface_name). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'ABAP interface source code'. However, does not differentiate from sibling tools like GetClass or GetFunction that also retrieve source code, preventing a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetTypeInfo or SearchObject. Description is minimal with no context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools