mcp-abap-abap-adt-api

gitUnlinkRepo

Destructive

Remove a package's link to its abapGit repository while keeping all objects intact. Reconnecting requires a fresh setup.

Instructions

Disconnect a package from its abapGit repository. The objects stay; the link and its state go, and reconnecting means setting it up again.

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": {
      "repoId": "<repoId>"
    },
    "name": "gitUnlinkRepo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repoId`	Yes	The ID of the repository.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds valuable nuance by specifying exactly what is destroyed (the link and its state) and what is preserved (the objects). It also discloses the consequence that reconnecting requires full setup again, giving the agent a solid safety picture beyond the raw destructiveHint.

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 short sentences deliver the action, the key effect, and the re-setup consequence with no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a single-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description explains what is removed, what remains, and the future implication. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and anticipate its side effects.

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 input schema fully documents repoId as 'The ID of the repository,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to since the schema already carries that burden.

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 the action ('Disconnect') and the resource ('a package from its abapGit repository'), making its purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling git tools like gitCreateRepo and gitPullRepo. It also adds the key consequence that objects remain, which sharpens the tool's identity.

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 description implies when to use it: when you want to remove the link between a package and its repository while keeping the objects. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance remains implied rather than fully specified.

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

Deploy Server