mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

changePackagePreview

Read-only

Preview the refactoring impact of moving an ABAP object to a new package, showing old and new package and transport request. Check before executing the move in ADT or SE80.

Instructions

What moving an object to another package would involve: the refactoring the backend proposes, with the old and new package and the transport it would be recorded in. Preview only - this server does not execute the move, because the library offers no evaluate step and the payload has to be assembled here, which is not something to run unverified against a real package. Do the move itself in ADT or SE80 once the preview looks right.

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": {
      "objectUrl": "<objectUrl>",
      "newPackage": "<newPackage>"
    },
    "name": "changePackagePreview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`objectUrl`	Yes	Object to move, e.g. /sap/bc/adt/oo/classes/zcl_app_foo.
`transport`	No	Transport request the move would be recorded in - the request itself, not a developer task.
`newPackage`	Yes	Target package, e.g. ZAPP_BASE.
`objectName`	No	Object name; looked up when omitted.
`objectType`	No	ADT object type, e.g. CLAS/OC; looked up when omitted.
`oldPackage`	No	Current package; looked up when omitted.
`ignoreSyntaxErrors`	No	Ask the backend to propose the move even with syntax errors (default false).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description goes beyond by explaining the nature of the preview: it does not execute the move, and why (no evaluate step, payload must be assembled and cannot be run unverified). This adds context beyond the annotation, making the tool's behavior fully transparent. No contradiction.

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 structured with a first sentence stating the purpose, and subsequent sentences explaining limitations and next steps. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses only three sentences. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 preview tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the preview shows, that it does not execute, and where to perform the actual move. It lacks details about the exact response structure, but that is implied by 'what moving an object... would involve'. Overall, it covers the essential context an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a high-level context that the preview includes old and new package and transport, but it does not provide per-parameter details beyond what the schema already states. It does not compensate for any coverage gaps because there are none, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool provides a preview of what moving an object to another package would involve, including the proposed refactoring, old/new package, and transport. It explicitly distinguishes itself from an actual move by saying 'Preview only' and 'this server does not execute the move', which separates it from sibling tools like renamePreview or extractMethodPreview. The verb 'preview' and resource 'package move' are specific.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: to see the refactoring proposal without executing. It also gives when-not-to-use: 'Do the move itself in ADT or SE80 once the preview looks right.' This clearly routes the agent to external tools for the actual move, and explains why the server cannot execute it. This is a strong usage guideline with explicit alternatives.

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

Deploy Server