Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
abap-config-mcp

abap-config-mcp

by netweaver1970
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ABAP App-Server Memory Report

abap_memory_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports ABAP kernel memory and box-health parameters via C_SAPGPARAM, helping check memory sizing and HANA/OS over-commit on any ABAP system.

Instructions

Report the ABAP application server's key kernel memory / box-health profile parameters (PHYS_MEMSIZE, em/initial_size_MB extended memory, abap/heap_area_*, ztta/roll_*, abap/buffersize, work-process counts) via C_SAPGPARAM — basis-only, so it works on any ABAP box. Companion to hana_memory_report: on a single-host AS+DB appliance, read BOTH and check that HANA global_allocation_limit + ABAP working memory + OS ≤ physical RAM (over-commit shows up as swap). Needs engine v0.9.16+.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "abap_memory_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
icfPathNoSICF path of the engine (default: /sap/bc/zmcp_cust)
connectionIdNoSAP system connection ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.16.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the description's job is to add operational context — it does that by disclosing the underlying read mechanism (C_SAPGPARAM), the portability trait (basis-only), the version floor, and the diagnostic interpretation (over-commit shows up as swap). It does not mention authorization requirements or latency/volume characteristics, which would complete the picture for an openWorld call.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with the companion-tool guidance placed after the purpose. The parenthetical parameter list and the multi-clause appliance check make it heavy for a single sentence, but every clause carries real information and none is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: it enumerates the categories of parameters that come back, notes the basis-only applicability, and gives an interpretation rule for the data. What's missing is error/failure behavior and whether the report spans all work processes or the current server in a multi-instance landscape.

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% and both parameters (icfPath, connectionId) carry their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter — no defaults, no connection-selection guidance for multi-system setups — so it neither helps nor hurts.

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?

States a specific verb (report), a specific resource (ABAP application server kernel memory / box-health profile parameters), and enumerates the exact parameter names (PHYS_MEMSIZE, em/initial_size_MB, ztta/roll_*, work-process counts). It also names the data source (C_SAPGPARAM) and explicitly positions itself relative to hana_memory_report, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit usage context: basis-only, works on any ABAP box, and states the concrete scenario where the two reports must be combined (single-host AS+DB appliance) with the exact check to perform (HANA global_allocation_limit + ABAP working memory + OS ≤ physical RAM). It also states a prerequisite (engine v0.9.16+), which functions as a when-not/cannot-use condition.

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