mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

deleteObject

Destructive

Delete an ABAP object securely with an edit lock and transport request. Removes the object, releases the lock, and clears cached source; irreversible, so ensure the deletion is intended.

Instructions

Delete an object. It needs an edit lock (this server passes the handle it holds, so lock the object first) and, outside $TMP, a transport request. Deleting does not release the lock - the backend leaves it, pointing at an object that no longer exists - so this releases it and forgets it, and drops the cached source with it. Not undoable from here: the object is gone and only a transport of the deletion travels on.

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>"
    },
    "name": "deleteObject"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`objectUrl`	Yes	URL of the object to delete
`transport`	No	Transport request number
`lockHandle`	No	Lock handle for the object; omit to use the one this server recorded for it (see listLocks)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description reveals critical side effects: the backend does not release the lock on deletion, this tool releases and forgets the lock, cached source is dropped, and the deletion is irreversible. This is rich behavioral disclosure that materially changes how an agent should reason about calling the tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then delivers prerequisites, lock behavior, and irreversibility in a logical order. It is longer than minimal, but every sentence carries consequential information for a destructive operation. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive operation, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, lock handling, and reversibility, which is substantial given annotations already flag destructiveness. It does not specify return behavior, but no output schema exists and the focus is correctly on risks. The main gap is that 'object' could be more explicit about which ADT object types are covered, though sibling deleteMethod helps disambiguate.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds operational context about lock handles and transport requirements, but it does not define parameter formats or values beyond what the schema provides. It does not need to compensate for a coverage gap.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Delete an object.' It distinguishes itself from sibling deleteMethod by targeting whole objects rather than methods, and the rest of the description reinforces the resource scope. The purpose is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

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?

The description gives explicit prerequisites: an edit lock is required, and a transport request is needed outside $TMP. It also warns that the operation is not undoable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server