mcp-rap-migrator

human_checkpoint

Presents a summary of completed actions, analysis, and proposed next step; requires human approval (YES/MODIFY/ABORT) to continue migration.

Instructions

MANDATORY between every step — shows the human: WHAT WAS DONE, ANALYSIS SUMMARY, and NEXT PROPOSED ACTION. Human must type YES/MODIFY/ABORT to proceed. Always call this before write_abap_object or validate_and_activate.

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": {
      "step_title": "<step_title>",
      "what_i_got": "<what_i_got>",
      "my_analysis": "<my_analysis>",
      "next_action": "<next_action>"
    },
    "name": "human_checkpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`step_title`	Yes
`what_i_got`	Yes	Summary of data retrieved/generated
`my_analysis`	Yes	Agent interpretation and migration decisions
`next_action`	Yes	What agent will do next if approved
`code_preview`	No	Optional: ABAP code snippet to show human (first 50 lines)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool pauses for human input and shows specific summaries. Does not mention side effects, but the behavior is clear and non-destructive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no waste. Purpose and key usage details are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Description fully covers the tool's role, when to use, required parameters, and what the human must do. No output schema is needed for this tool's simple interaction.

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 80%, and the description maps its summary fields to parameters (e.g., 'ANALYSIS SUMMARY' to my_analysis) but adds little new detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool acts as a mandatory checkpoint showing the human what was done, analysis, and next action. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it must be called before write_abap_object or validate_and_activate.

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?

Explicitly states the tool must be used between every step and always before write_abap_object or validate_and_activate. Also tells the human must type YES/MODIFY/ABORT to proceed.

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

Deploy Server