ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

deleteObject

Remove ABAP objects from the system using their URL and lock handle, optionally specifying a transport request for deletion.

Instructions

Deletes an ABAP object from the system

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>",
      "lockHandle": "<lockHandle>"
    },
    "name": "deleteObject"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`objectUrl`	Yes	URL of the object to delete
`lockHandle`	Yes	Lock handle for the object
`transport`	No	Transport request number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It fails to mention that deletion is irreversible, that a lockHandle is required (though present in schema), or what happens to related objects/transports. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 single sentence is clear and front-loaded, with no waste. However, it is so terse that it omits important context like lock requirements, making it slightly less effective than a concise yet slightly more explanatory description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain prerequisites (locking), return values, and side effects. It only states the basic deletion action, leaving the agent to infer behavior from parameter names. This is incomplete for a destructive operation with a required lockHandle.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (objectUrl, transport, lockHandle), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Deletes an ABAP object from the system' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like transportDelete (which handles transport requests). The scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as locking the object. The required lockHandle parameter implies a lock is needed, but the description does not state this or explain the delete workflow.

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

Deploy Server