Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

by dachienit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gitUnlinkRepo

Remove a Git repository connection from ABAP development projects to manage source control integrations.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoIdYesThe ID of the repository.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or what 'unlink' entails (e.g., whether it only removes the remote reference or deletes local files). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could have included more context within the same sentence structure.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what 'unlink' means operationally, what the consequences are, or any required context. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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 only parameter (repoId) has a schema description ('The ID of the repository.') that fully covers its meaning. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, which already handles the semantics. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Unlinks a Git repository.' uses a specific verb ('unlinks') and a clear resource ('Git repository'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling git tools like gitCreateRepo, gitPullRepo, and switchRepoBranch, none of which convey an unlink operation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or any exclusion criteria relative to other git-related tools such as gitDeleteRepo or deleteObject.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools