Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP ABAP ADT

MCP ABAP ADT

by mario-andreschak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

GetTransaction

Retrieve ABAP transaction details from SAP systems by specifying the transaction name, enabling developers to access development artifacts through the MCP ABAP ADT server.

Instructions

Retrieve ABAP transaction details

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": {
      "transaction_name": "<transaction_name>"
    },
    "name": "GetTransaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transaction_nameYesName of the ABAP transaction

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but does not explain authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if the transaction does not exist. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key details without losing conciseness.

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 has no output schema and simple input, the description should at least hint at the output structure or what 'details' entails. It does not, leaving ambiguity. For a retrieval tool, the absence of return value information is a notable gap.

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% with the parameter 'transaction_name' having a description 'Name of the ABAP transaction'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 transaction details' clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and the resource (ABAP transaction details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like GetProgram or GetTable by specifying 'transaction'. However, 'details' is vague and could be more specific.

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 such as GetProgram or GetTable. The context is only implicit through the tool name and sibling list. No explicit when/when-not or alternative suggestions are given.

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