mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

gitCreateRepo

Link an ABAP package to an abapGit repository and pull its objects into the package, importing them into the target.

Instructions

Link a package to an abapGit repository and pull it. This WRITES the objects of that repository into the package - the largest write in this server.

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": {
      "packageName": "<packageName>",
      "repourl": "<repourl>"
    },
    "name": "gitCreateRepo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user`	No	The username.
`branch`	No	The branch name.
`repourl`	Yes	The URL of the repository.
`password`	No	The password.
`transport`	No	The transport.
`packageName`	Yes	The name of the package.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, and the description goes further by explicitly warning that this is 'the largest write in this server' and that it writes repository objects into the package. This adds meaningful impact/scope context beyond the schema and annotations, with 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the critical write warning in the second. No filler or repetitive content.

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 write-heavy tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description conveys the action, scope, and scale of impact. It could mention preconditions such as package existence or repository access, but the core information an agent needs to select and call it is present.

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 all 6 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only helps clarify the overall action.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Link a package to an abapGit repository and pull it') and clarifies that objects are written into the package. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast nearby siblings such as gitPullRepo or gitUnlinkRepo.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Link a package...and pull it' implies when this tool should be used (initial linking plus pull), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over gitPullRepo, gitUnlinkRepo, or other git siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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

Deploy Server