abap-adt-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

adt_create_object

Creates an ABAP object shell in a package, returning the URI for later source writing. Handles types like CLAS, PROG, INTF, FUGR, TABL, DTEL.

Instructions

Create a new ABAP object shell (no source yet) in a package (default $TMP). Returns the new object's URI so you can follow up with adt_write_source. Name must match the Z*/Y* prefix whitelist.

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": {
      "objectType": "<objectType>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "adt_create_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	New object name, e.g. ZCL_MY_CLASS
`package`	No	Target package / DEVCLASS. Omit to be asked (create new package \| use $TMP).
`transport`	No	Transport request for the creation. Omit + non-$TMP package -> asked to create one.
`objectType`	Yes	Creatable type id, e.g. CLAS, PROG, INTF, FUGR, TABL, DTEL
`description`	No		Created via ABAP ADT MCP

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, but description discloses that the object is created without source, returns URI, and names must match prefix. It does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects like transport request creation.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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?

Covers creation intent, follow-up step, naming rules, and default package. Lacks details on transport handling or error scenarios, but sufficient for a shell creation tool with a clear output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Adds value beyond schema by stating default package ($TMP), required name prefix (Z*/Y*), and return URI. Schema coverage is 80%, but the description enriches the meaning of parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the action (create an ABAP object shell), the resource (object in a package), the outcome (returns URI), and adds a constraint (name prefix whitelist). It distinguishes from siblings like adt_write_source and other create tools.

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?

Explicitly says to follow up with adt_write_source, indicating a two-step workflow. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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