ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

transportReference

Retrieve transport references for ABAP objects using program ID, object type, and name to manage transport requests in ABAP development workflows.

Instructions

Retrieves a transport reference.

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": {
      "pgmid": "<pgmid>",
      "obj_wbtype": "<obj_wbtype>",
      "obj_name": "<obj_name>"
    },
    "name": "transportReference"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pgmid`	Yes	The program ID.
`obj_wbtype`	Yes	The object type.
`obj_name`	Yes	The object name.
`tr_number`	No	The transport number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully communicate behavior. It only says 'Retrieves' implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks essential information, so the brevity is a deficiency, not a strength.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a transport reference is, what the return value looks like, or any constraints on the inputs, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema itself provides 100% coverage, so the agent has the basic parameter meanings.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool retrieves a transport reference, which is a clear action, but it provides no detail on what a transport reference is or how it differs from similar tools like transportInfo. The purpose is not fully explained.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or why one would choose this over transportInfo or other transport-related tools.

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

Deploy Server