Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP ABAP ADT

MCP ABAP ADT

by mario-andreschak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetTable

Retrieve ABAP table structure from SAP systems to analyze database schema, understand field definitions, and support development workflows.

Instructions

Retrieve ABAP table 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": {
      "table_name": "<table_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetTable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_nameYesName of the ABAP table

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the basic action. It omits behavioral details such as whether any prerequisites or side effects exist, or the format of the returned structure.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, but extremely brief. While concise, it might sacrifice necessary detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'table structure' entails (e.g., fields, keys). It fails to provide a complete picture, leaving ambiguity.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter fully with a description, and the tool description adds no extra semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100%.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Retrieve ABAP table structure' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like GetTableContents (which retrieves data) and GetStructure (which may refer to other dictionary structures).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for structure retrieval, and sibling names suggest alternatives like GetTableContents for data, but no explicit guidance on when or why to choose this tool over others.

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