ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

transportDelete

Delete transport requests in ABAP systems by specifying the transport number. This tool removes unwanted or obsolete transports from the development environment.

Instructions

Deletes a transport.

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": {
      "transportNumber": "<transportNumber>"
    },
    "name": "transportDelete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transportNumber`	Yes	The transport number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Deletes a transport' without mentioning irreversibility, impact on associated tasks or objects, or any confirmation requirements. This is insufficient for a destructive operation, as an agent cannot anticipate the consequences.

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. While it is efficient, it is also under-specified for a delete operation, but the conciseness dimension focuses on structure and length, which are appropriate.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context for a destructive tool. It lacks information about error handling, reversibility, preconditions, or postconditions. The single-sentence description is not sufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 a description for the single parameter 'transportNumber' ('The transport number.'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameter is used or any constraints, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Deletes a transport' clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (transport), and the verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like transportInfo or transportRelease. However, it does not elaborate on what a 'transport' refers to or specify any scope, so it lacks full specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or side conditions. The description merely states the action without providing context about appropriate use cases, such as when a transport can be deleted or what checks are required.

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

Deploy Server