abapsmith

abap_service

DestructiveIdempotent

Inspect OData service contracts for RAP SRVB bindings—entity sets, keys, fields, navigation, and CRUD/search/page permissions—and register or deregister bindings in the OData runtime.

Instructions

OData contract a RAP SRVB publishes: entity sets, keys, fields, nav, CRUD/search/page perms; V2/V4 detected. Cannot read entity data — contract only. op="publish"/"unpublish" register or deregister the binding in the OData service runtime (admin-mode ceiling, confirm required to arm). Unpublished bindings named as such.

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": {
      "binding": "<binding>"
    },
    "name": "abap_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`op`	No	read (default): contract/entity/raw as above. publish/unpublish: register or deregister the binding in the OData service runtime — needs confirm, and is off unless ABAP_ALLOW_SERVICE_PUBLISH permits it.
`mode`	No	contract (default): sets/keys/perms. entity: expand one set, needs entity. raw: EDMX.
`entity`	No	Set/type to expand. Required for mode=entity.
`binding`	Yes	SRVB name, not the CDS view or SRVD.
`confirm`	No	Required to arm op=publish/unpublish: the binding name, echoed back exactly. Omit it first to get a dry run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.2Sep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required to arm op=publish/unpublish: the binding name, echoed back exactly. Omit it first to get a dry run.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / op

Added value: +{
+  "description": "read (default): contract/entity/raw as above. publish/unpublish: register or deregister the binding in the OData service runtime — needs confirm, and is off unless ABAP_ALLOW_SERVICE_PUBLISH permits it.",
+  "enum": [
+    "read",
+    "publish",
+    "unpublish"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.3.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only and destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: publish/unpublish register/deregister the binding in the OData runtime, require confirm and admin-mode ceiling, and unpublished bindings are named as such. It also notes V2/V4 detection. This provides behavioral nuance the annotations do not convey, with 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three dense sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded ('OData contract a RAP SRVB publishes'), followed by a key limitation, then side-effect conditions. Every clause earns its place, and the telegraphed style is information-dense without being bloated.

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?

Given five parameters, two enums, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope, limitations, and operational prerequisites. It explains what the contract includes, what it cannot do, and the publish/unpublish workflow. The schema fills in parameter details, so nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 thorough per-parameter descriptions. The description echoes the op behavior ('op="publish"/"unpublish"') but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'OData contract a RAP SRVB publishes' and enumerates what the contract contains (entity sets, keys, fields, nav, perms). It clearly distinguishes itself from data-reading tools with 'Cannot read entity data — contract only' and explicitly names its ops (publish/unpublish). This makes its purpose unmistakable among the many abap_* siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context for when to use publish/unpublish: 'admin-mode ceiling, confirm required to arm' and 'off unless ABAP_ALLOW_SERVICE_PUBLISH permits it.' It also states an explicit when-not: 'Cannot read entity data — contract only.' However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool (e.g., abap_read) for data reads, so it lacks explicit alternative routing.

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