ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

gitCreateRepo

Create a new Git repository for ABAP packages by specifying the package name and repository URL, enabling version control integration in ABAP development environments.

Instructions

Creates a new Git repository.

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required authentication, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It presents the core functionality upfront. While minimal, it is appropriately concise for a simple action statement.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what happens on success, required permissions, relationship to other Git tools, or any constraints. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but also doesn't mislead. Parameters like packageName and repourl are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 'Creates a new Git repository' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from read/list operations like gitRepos or pull/push tools, though it doesn't elaborate on whether it creates a local or remote repository. Specific verb+resource, but lacking scope.

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 such as gitPullRepo, gitUnlinkRepo, or remoteRepoInfo. The description does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., existing target) or situations where this tool should be preferred.

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

Deploy Server