Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP ABAP ADT

MCP ABAP ADT

by mario-andreschak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetStructure

Retrieve ABAP structure definitions from SAP systems to analyze data models and development artifacts for integration or debugging purposes.

Instructions

Retrieve ABAP Structure

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": {
      "structure_name": "<structure_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetStructure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
structure_nameYesName of the ABAP Structure

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve', which implies a read operation, but does not state what is returned, whether it is safe, or any side effects. The complete lack of behavioral details is insufficient.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise at four words, but it is under-specified lacking essential context. While concise, it does not earn its place as it fails to provide sufficient information for effective tool selection.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least indicate what kind of data is returned (e.g., structure fields). The current description is too sparse to be complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'structure_name', which is described as 'Name of the ABAP Structure'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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?

The description 'Retrieve ABAP Structure' clearly states the action (retrieve) and the resource (ABAP Structure). It distinguishes from siblings like GetClass or GetTable by specifying the object type 'Structure', though it lacks elaboration on what exactly is retrieved (e.g., metadata, definition).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetTable or GetClass. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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