Skip to main content
Glama
palimkarakshay

abap-mcp

by palimkarakshay
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Lint ABAP source

lint_abap
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run static analysis on ABAP, CDS, or behavior-definition source code to get style and correctness feedback before committing, entirely offline.

Instructions

Run abaplint static analysis over ABAP, CDS or behavior-definition sources and return structured findings (rule key, message, severity, file/line/column, the offending line, and a docs URL per finding). Use this when you have written or modified ABAP code and want style and correctness feedback before it goes anywhere near a system — it runs entirely offline on the provided text. It does not connect to any SAP system, does not run ATC, and cannot judge whether referenced objects exist unless you provide them in the same call (preset "style", the default, skips whole-program checks for that reason; preset "full" enables them when you provide every dependency). A focus tag turns a pass into a themed review (performance / security / Clean ABAP style) without hand-picking rules; rule overrides layer a team's own pack on top. For an ABAP-Cloud migration verdict use check_cloud_readiness instead. Example: lint_abap({ "files": [ { "source": "REPORT ztest.\nDATA foo TYPE i.\nIF foo = 1.\nENDIF." } ] }).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesSource files to analyze, up to 32 per call, 100k chars each.
focusNoCurated rule-pack lens: report only rules carrying this abaplint tag — "Performance" for a tuning pass, "Security" for a security sweep, "Styleguide" for Clean ABAP adherence. Parser errors always surface. Ignored with preset "syntax-only". Combine with rules to re-tune individual rules in the pack.
rulesNoabaplint rule overrides merged onto the preset (and onto a focus filter), e.g. { "line_length": { "length": 120 }, "7bit_ascii": false } — encode an org's best-practice pack here.
presetNo"style" (default): abaplint default rules minus whole-program semantic checks — right for isolated snippets. "full": every default rule, expects all referenced objects provided. "syntax-only": parser errors only.style
abapVersionNoABAP language version to parse against. "v758" (default) is current on-prem; "Cloud" is ABAP Cloud / Steampunk.v758

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findingsYes
fileCountYesNumber of files analyzed.
truncatedYesTrue if more than 500 findings existed and the list was cut.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds critical behavior: runs entirely offline, doesn't connect to SAP systems, doesn't run ATC, and explains how presets affect semantic checks. No contradictions.

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 moderately long but well-organized. It opens with the core function and output, then usage conditions, limitations, parameter details, alternative tool, and an example. Each section is informative without redundancy, justifying its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 enums, nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: offline usage, preset behaviors, focus tags, rule overrides, file limits, and language version. It also mentions output structure. No gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'focus' tag as a themed review, 'preset' options in detail, and 'rules' as overrides. It also includes an example call, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: running abaplint static analysis on ABAP, CDS, or behavior-definition sources and returning structured findings. It specifies output fields and distinguishes from sibling check_cloud_readiness.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use (after writing/modifying ABAP code for offline feedback) and when not to (for system-level checks like ATC or object existence). It provides guidance on presets and mentions an alternative tool for cloud readiness.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/palimkarakshay/abap-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server